Maffett v. Citizens Bank

I am in accord with much said in the majority opinion but, feeling strongly that the conclusion reached is erroneous, I am forced to dissent.

It is claimed in the majority opinion that the showing made for relief in this matter was not good cause within the meaning of § 9283. It is conceded that the amendment of 1933 “was undoubtedly passed in view of the Rosenquist decision,” 187 Minn. 375, 245 N. W. 621. That decision at least allowed the commission to reopen its decisions before it had formally determined that the employe was entitled to no more compensation. By the interpretation here…