Legal Opinion
Gutz v. Honeywell, Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided January 30, 1987No. CX-86-1265PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SIMONETT, Justice.
The Rehabilitation Review Panel denied the employee retraining benefits, and the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) affirmed. The employee challenges the review panel’s findings; she also challenges the panel’s jurisdiction, the constitutionality of the procedure for hearing rehabilitation claims, and the applicable governing statutes for rehabilitation eligibility and benefits. We affirm.
Julie Gutz began work at Honeywell in 1961, eventually achieving the position of electronics technician. On February 19, 1976, she sustained a work-related injury requiring a…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie JayceesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Heddan v. DirkswagerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Taylor v. Beltrami Electric Cooperative, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Leahy v. St. Mary's HospitalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Violette v. Midwest Printing Co.-Webb PublishingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- Peterson v. O.R. Anderberg ConstructionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- Wilson v. Crown Cork & SealSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- Hoffman v. Gopher State SilicaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987