Legal Opinion · Dissent

Langa v. Fleischmann-Kurth Malting Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 14, 1992No. C4-91-403Published

1DissentYetka, Justice

I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the majority patently disregards the plain language of the Workers’ Compensation Act, language which defines the concept of rehabilitation and the expenses for which an injured employee may be compensated on the road to recovery to resume past employment or retrain for new work. Today’s opinion throws an obstacle in that road for this and other similarly situated injured employees who must get well before they can get back to work. This is not the intent of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

The record reveals that the employee was forced to use a knee…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Paul's Auto & Truck Sales, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
  2. Rippentrop v. Imperial Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  3. Vait v. Merillat IndustriesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API