Legal Opinion
In Re Matter of Hildebrandt
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided August 9, 2005No. A04-2127PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge.
Relator Carol Hildebrandt challenges the decision of respondent the Public Employee’s Retirement Association (PERA) denying her duty-related disability benefits. She argues the PERA board erred in interpreting the phrase “act of duty” in Minn.Stat. § 353E.06 (2004) to mean that the disability must arise from an inherent danger associated with her job. She also argues that because all four doctors who examined her concluded that her disability was job related, the PERA board’s determination is arbitrary and unsupported by the evidence. Because we conclude that…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Reserve Mining Co. v. HerbstSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Contested Cases of St. Otto's Home v. Minnesota Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance TrustSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- Citizens for a Balanced City v. Plymouth Congregational ChurchCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- In re Pera Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of BrittainSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
- In re the Pera Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of BrittainCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
- State v. WatsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013
- In Re the Temporary Immediate Suspension of the Family Child Care License of StreckerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
- In Re BrittainSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.