Brehm v. Liebenberg & Kaplan
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1937, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Merchants Trust Co. v. G. Sommers & Co. (Minn. 1937)
- Chesler v. City of Minneapolis (Minn. 1932)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Certiorari to review an order of the industrial commission.
Relator, Otto Brehm, was an employe of respondent Liebenberg & Kaplan. He was accidentally injured January 20, 1927. His employers furnished medical treatment and care and paid him compensation up to July 25, 1927. Compensation was then discontinued on the ground that relator had fully recovered from the injury and the disability therefrom had ceased. Proper notice was given, and the matter of further compensation was heard before a referee. Relator claimed that disability from the accident and injury continued, and asked that compensation be continued after July 25. The referee found that any disability after July 25 was *377 not the result of the accident and injury in question, and denied further compensation. The industrial commission, on appeal, affirmed the findings and decision of the referee.
It is conceded that relator was in a disabled condition after July 25, 1927, and unable to work. Whether this disability was a result of or caused by the accidental injury suffered in January, or was caused by disease not connected with or coming from the accidental injury, was the question tried. A recital of the evidence would serve no useful purpose. We find evidence in the record sufficient to sustain the decision. It was a question of fact. As triers of the facts we might have reached a different conclusion. Under the rules, often stated, governing this court in its review of findings of fact, we cannot reverse where there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain the findings. And Avhere different minds might reasonably reach different conclusions from the evidence, we may not disturb a conclusion so reached.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.