Minnesota Supreme Court, 1931

Tevik v. Lahti Bros.

Tevik v. Lahti Bros.
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 9, 1931 · PER CURIAM.
234 N.W. 320; 182 Minn. 268; 1931 Minn. LEXIS 1148 (North Western Reporter)

Counsel

Sam J. Levy , for relator. George Hoke and Nathan A. Cobb , for Lahti Brothers, employer, and Standard Accident Insurance Company, its insurer, respondents.

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 1936, 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

Tevik v. Lahti Bros.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

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

Per Curiam.

Certiorari to the industrial commission to review an order authorizing the discontinuance of payments for temporary total disability.

Relator sustained an injury to his back February 4, 1929. Compensation was allowed and paid until December 9, 1929. It was then discontinued, the insurer claiming that relator had recovered from his injury.

The issue was submitted to a referee. His decision against relator was affirmed on appeal to the industrial commission. There is evidence in support, so we cannot disturb the result. There is medical testimony, based on personal examination of relator, and radiographs, that relator at the time of the accident was afflicted with osteoarthritis of certain of his lumbar vertebrae; that the accident aggravated that condition and caused temporary disability, but that by December 9 all the results of the accident had disappeared, relator’s then condition being due wholly to the pre-existing arthritic condition of the spine. That view was adopted by the referee and the commission, and we cannot say that it was wrong. The order under review must be and is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.