Legal Opinion · Dissent

Daniel v. City of Minneapolis

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 27, 2019No. A17-0141Published

1Dissent

ANDERSON, Justice (dissenting).

The question here is whether workers' compensation liability on the part of respondent City of Minneapolis for appellant Keith Daniel's ankle injuries"is exclusive and in the place of" disability-accommodation liability for the same injuries. Because Daniel's failure-to-accommodate claim is "on account of" the same physical injuries that gave rise to the City's workers' compensation liability, I would hold that the City's workers' compensation liability is exclusive. In concluding otherwise, the court undermines the foundational exclusivity principle on which…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Breimhorst v. BeckmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
  2. Lunderberg v. BiermanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
  3. Donnelly v. Minneapolis Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
  4. Dukowitz v. Hannon Security ServicesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
  5. Karst v. FC Hayer Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989

22 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