Legal Opinion · Dissent

McConville v. City of St. Paul

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 24, 1995No. C6-94-1888Published

1DissentGardebring, Justice

I respectfully dissent. This case requires us to consider the relationship of two provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, Minn.Stat. § 176.011, subd. 16, which provides coverage for injuries sustained by an employee during transportation to and from the place of employment, if that transportation is regularly furnished by the employer, and Minn.Stat. § 176.021, subd. 9, which precludes coverage for injuries incurred while participating in a voluntary recreation program sponsored by the employer.

As a general rule, an injury occurring on the employer’s premises while the employee *233is going…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Gibberd Ex Rel. Gibberd v. Control Data Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  2. Starrett v. Pier FoundrySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
  3. Lehn v. KladtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  4. Raymond v. Osseo/Brooklyn School Bus Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API