Legal Opinion
Andrzeczak v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided October 18, 1945PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBarlow, J.
The commission denied plaintiff’s application for compensation on the ground that his claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, sec. 102.12, Stats. The facts are not in dispute, and are set forth in the findings and order of the Industrial Commission as follows:
“The applicant, an employee of the respondent, suffered accidental injury to his left wrist on April 7, 1939, when a lathe bed tipped over and as he tried to catch it with the left hand it twisted his left wrist backward, resulting in injury. His left wrist was painful and became swollen. He went to the nurse, who sent…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Acme Body Works v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Miller v. LaingSupreme Court of Iowa · 1931
- Rathjen v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
- Yellow Cab Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
- State Ex Rel. Watter v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Cutler-Hammer, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
- Semons Department Store v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
- Kwaterski v. Labor & Industry Review CommissionCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1990
- Shelby Mutual Insurance v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1982
- Zabkowicz v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.