Gunderson v. Harrington

OPINION

HARTEN, Judge.

Appellant sued respondent, her former employer, alleging assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The district court awarded respondent summary judgment on the grounds that the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act precludes appellant’s claims and that the intentional injury exception to that provision does not apply. Appellant challenges the summary judgment.

PACTS

Respondent Dr. Mark Harrington, an orthodontist d/b/a Harrington Orthodontics, Ltd., a Minnesota Subchapter S corporation, employed appellant Corliss…