Legal Opinion

Mach v. Wells Concrete Products Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 22, 2015No. A14-2065PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GILDEA, Chief Justice.

We are asked to determine whether res judicata or collateral estoppel bars respondent’s workers’ compensation claim. The compensation judge concluded that the claim was barred, but the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (“WCCA”) reversed. We agree that res judicata does not apply, but because we conclude that whether collateral estoppel bars respondent’s claim depends on whether his condition has changed, we vacate the decision of the WCCA and remand to the compensation judge.

This action arises from an injury that respondent David J. Mach sustained to his left…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Hauser v. MealeySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
  3. Hauschildt v. BeckinghamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
  4. Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  5. Martin Ex Rel. Hoff v. City of RochesterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Leonard N. Anderson v. City of St. Paul, MinnesotaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2017
  2. Breaker v. Bemidji State UniversityCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
  3. Final Exit Network, Inc. v. EllisonDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2019
  4. Lupe Development Partners, LLC v. Deutsch (In re Deutsch)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2017
  5. Sheila Foster v. State of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2018

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API