Minnesota Supreme Court, 1971 The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Commission's denial of an employee's petition to vacate a 1950 stipulated award, holding that Minn. St. 175.36 authorized destruction of commission records and that the commission did not abuse its discretion.

The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Commission's denial of an employee's petition to vacate a 1950 stipulated award, holding that Minn. St. 175.36 authorized destruction of commission records and that the commission did not abuse its discretion.

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 14, 1971 · Knutson, Nelson, Odden, Otis, Rogosheske

187 N.W.2d 133; 290 Minn. 518; 1971 Minn. LEXIS 1168 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Outcome: Affirmed for employer and insurer.

AI-enhanced analysis. Verify before relying in legal proceedings.

Counsel

James B. Lund, for relator., Robb, Van Eps & Gilmore and Michael D. Aafedt, for 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 2026, 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

What happened

The facts of the case, in plain language.

On December 21, 1949, Ernest J. Schoepke allegedly sustained a back injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Company.

On September 8, 1950, a stipulation of settlement was filed with the Workmen's Compensation Commission providing for payment of five weeks of temporary total disability, thirty weeks of permanent partial disability representing a 10-percent permanent partial disability, and medical expenses.

The Workmen's Compensation Commission destroyed its file on the 1950 settlement eighteen years later pursuant to Minn. St. 175.36.

In denying the petition to vacate, the commission cited the prior denial of primary liability, the employee's continued working for many years, his gradually changing condition, and the lack of specific information caused by destruction of the records.

The record does not disclose that the attorney general was notified of the constitutional challenges to Minn. St. 175.36, so those claims were not properly before the court.

What the court decided

Ernest J. Schoepke injured his back at work in December 1949 and settled his workers' compensation claim by stipulation in September 1950, receiving disability benefits and payment of medical expenses. Almost twenty years later he petitioned the Workmen's Compensation Commission to vacate—that is, cancel—the 1950 award. The commission denied the petition, citing in part that it had destroyed its file eighteen years after the settlement as a record-retention statute permitted, leaving little information available. On certiorari review, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the statute authorized destruction of commission records after eighteen years; it waived the unsupported argument that the commission should not judge a case whose records it had destroyed; it declined to reach constitutional claims because the attorney general had not been notified; and it found no abuse of the commission's considerable discretion in refusing to set aside the compromise settlement.

Minn. Stat. § 175.36 authorizes the Workmen's Compensation Commission to destroy its files and records after their retention for 18 years. (*519)
An assignment of error based on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or authorities in the appellate brief, is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection. (*520)
When the state is not a party, notification to the attorney general is a prerequisite to consideration of issues challenging the constitutionality of an act of the legislature. (*520)
A workmen's compensation commission does not abuse the broad discretion vested in it under Minn. Stat. § 176.461 by refusing to set aside an aged compromise-and-settlement award in light of considerations such as prior denial of primary liability, the employee's continued working over many years, gradual change in the employee's condition, and lack of specific information caused by destruction of the records. (*520)

How the court reached its decision

The court's reasoning, step by step.

Whether Minn. Stat. § 175.36 authorizes the Workmen's Compensation Commission to destroy its files and records. Although acknowledging that § 175.36 is not drafted as clearly as one might wish, the court concluded without difficulty that its terms authorize destruction of commission records after their retention for 18 years. Section 175.36 authorizes destruction of commission records after 18 years, and the commission's destruction of the 1950 settlement file pursuant to the statute was authorized.

Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commission abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the 1950 award based on stipulation. In its memorandum denying the petition, the commission relied on the prior denial of primary liability before the settlement, the employee's continued working for many years, his gradually changing condition, and the lack of specific information caused by destruction of the records in declining to set aside a compromise settlement for an injury occurring approximately 20 years earlier. The reasons cited by the commission preclude a finding of abuse of discretion, and the order denying the petition to vacate is affirmed.

Whether the commission was disqualified from judging the petition because it had destroyed the underlying records. Relator advanced the issue without discussion or supporting authority, contrary to Rule 128.01(4), Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, and the court was unable to perceive prejudicial error in the issue upon mere inspection. The issue is deemed waived and will not be considered.

Whether Minn. Stat. § 175.36 unconstitutionally impairs contract rights or deprives the relator of property without notice and opportunity to be heard. The record does not disclose that notice was ever given to the attorney general regarding the constitutional challenges to § 175.36. The constitutional claims are not properly before the court and were not considered.

Key quotes from the opinion

Notable passages from the opinion, in the court's own words.

““In view of the denial of primary liability [prior to the settlement], continued working for many years, gradually changing condition, lack of specific information by reason of destruction of records, we do not believe that an award covering a compromise settlement for an injury occurring approximately 20 years ago should be set aside.””

Commission's stated reasons for refusing to vacate the 1950 stipulated award — *519

“Although Minn. St. 175.36 is not drafted as clearly as one might wish, we nonetheless have no difficulty holding that it authorizes the destruction of commission records after their retention for 18 years.”

Holding that the record-destruction statute validly authorized destroying commission files after 18 years — *519

““* * * In the absence of something to indicate that a discretionary power has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to legal usage, we are bound by the result. So long as such discretion is exercised judicially the result is beyond our reach. Its exercise depends not upon the application of rules of law but upon personal judgment.””

Standard limiting judicial review of the commission's statutorily vested discretion — *520

“In the instant case the reasons cited by the commission in its memorandum preclude a finding of abuse of discretion.”

Court's conclusion that the commission's reasons defeat any abuse-of-discretion finding — *520

Cases the court relied on

Earlier decisions the court cited as authority for its ruling.

Mattson v. Abate (279 Minn. 287, 156 N.W.2d 738) — Established that the discretion vested in the commission by Minn. Stat. § 176.461 to set aside earlier awards 'for cause' is of considerable latitude, though not limitless.
Jacobson v. Uptown Transfer & Storage Co. (268 Minn. 336, 129 N.W.2d 41) — Supplied the standard, quoted by this court, that a discretionary result is beyond judicial reach absent an arbitrary, capricious, or legally improper exercise of the power.
Ogrosky v. Commonwealth Electric Co. (172 Minn. 46, 214 N.W. 765) — Original source of the arbitrary-and-capricious discretion language this court quoted through Jacobson in defining the limits of judicial review of the commission's decision.
Village of Farmington v. Minnesota Municipal Commission (284 Minn. 125, 170 N.W.2d 197) — Supports the prerequisite that the attorney general be notified before constitutional challenges to legislation are considered when the state is not a party.
Jones v. Flour City Ornamental Iron Works (271 Minn. 42, 134 N.W.2d 586) — Cited as precedent consistent with concluding that the commission's enumerated reasons preclude a finding of abuse of discretion in refusing to vacate an award.

Cases that cite this one

85 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

In re the Marriage of: Timothy Michael Kopp v. Christina Ann Burton (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
State v. Andersen (Minn. 2010)
State v. Jackson (Minn. 2009)
Dougherty v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)
In re ARM (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg (Minn. Ct. App. 1998)
Taubman v. Prospect Drilling & Sawing, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)
In re the Custody of: A. A. S., Karryn Colleen Schwab v. Ryan George Schenck, ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2026)
Kidane Sante Shulbe v. Ashley Rose Henke (Minn. Ct. App. 2025)
Brent R. Henkel, Relator v. City of Mountain Iron, Department of Employment and Economic Development (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
City of Orono v. Jay T. Nygard (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
Paul J. Krause v. City of Elk River (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
In re Robb (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)
Cole v. Star Tribune (Minn. Ct. App. 1998)
State Department of Labor & Industry Ex Rel. Special Compensation Fund v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1996)
Amber Jemison v. Child Protection Service (Minn. Ct. App. 2025)
Kallys Albert, Sr. v. Chon Xiong, Jared J. Timmer (Progressive Claims Generalist), ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2024)
In re Qwest Corp. (Minn. Ct. App. 2018)
Troy K. Scheffler v. City of Anoka, City of Coon Rapids, Hicken, Scott, Howard & Anderson, P. A. (Minn. Ct. App. 2017)
Joel Inskeep and Chelsea Inskeep and o/b/o L.I. and E.I. v. Sheila Moore, Harry Walk (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
Kenneth S. Benigni v. St. Louis County, State of Minnesota, by Department of Human Services, Lake Superior Community Health Center (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
In re the Marriage of: Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld, f/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Hare v. Robert Russell Hare (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
Judy Brown v. Judith M. Lee (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
Judy Brown v. Judith M. Lee (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)

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.

Full opinion

The complete text of the court's opinion as published.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Certiorari upon the relation of Ernest J. Schoepke, employee, to review an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission denying a petition to vacate an award on stipulation against Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Company, employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, insurer.

On December 21, 1949, Schoepke allegedly sustained an injury to his back arising out of and in the course of his employment with Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Company. On September 8, 1950, a stipulation of settlement among these parties was filed with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission providing for payment of 5 weeks of temporary total disability, 30 weeks of permanent partial disability, representing a 10-percent permanent partial disability, and medical expenses, all in *519 connection with the back injury. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission destroyed its file 18 years later pursuant to Minn. St. 175.36.

On October 8, 1969, Schoepke filed a petition to vacate the earlier award. The matter was heard by the commission on March 9, 1970, and on March 20 the commission entered an order denying the petition to vacate. In an attached memorandum the commission summarized its reasons for denial of the petition as follows:

“In view of the denial of primary liability [prior to the settlement], continued working for many years, gradually changing condition, lack of specific information by reason of destruction of records, we do not believe that an award covering a compromise settlement for an injury occurring approximately 20 years ago should be set aside.”

Certiorari issued from this court on April 9, 1970, raises five issues: (1) Whether Minn. St. 175.36 1 authorizes the destruction of commission records; (2) whether destruction of records precludes a commission which destroyed the records from sitting in judgment on a case based on them; (3) whether § 175.36 is an unconstitutional impairment of contract rights, contrary to Minn. Const. art. 1, § 2; (4) whether destruction of records pursuant to Minn. St. 175.36 deprives relator of property without notice and opportunity to be heard; and (5) whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the 1950 award based on stipulation.

Although Minn. St. 175.36 is not drafted as clearly as one might wish, we nonetheless have no difficulty holding that it authorizes the destruction of commission records after their retention for 18 years.

Relator’s second issue, which in essence questions the propriety of the commission’s sitting in judgment on a matter wherein the records have been destroyed when in fact it was responsible for their destruction, is advanced without discussion or supporting authority, contrary to Rule 128.01(4), Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered *520 on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection. Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 25 N. W. (2d) 225; Kaehler v. Kaehler, 219 Minn. 536, 18 N. W. (2d) 312; Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170, 19 N. W. (2d) 327. As we are unable to perceive prejudicial error in this issue upon mere inspection, it is deemed waived.

Issues 3 and 4 concern the constitutionality of an act of the legislature. When the state is not a party, a prerequisite to consideration of such issues in this court is notification to the attorney general. Rule 144, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. Here, the record does not disclose that such notice was ever given. As a consequence, these claims are not properly before this court. Village of Farmington v. Minnesota Municipal Comm. 284 Minn. 125, 138, 170 N. W. (2d) 197, 205.

The final issue before this court is whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the 1950 award based on stipulation.

We hold that it did not.

Minn. St. 176.461 allows the Workmen’s Compensation Commission to set aside an earlier award “for cause.” 2 This court has held that the discretion which is thereby vested in the commission is of considerable latitude, though not limitless. Mattson v. Abate, 279 Minn. 287, 156 N. W. (2d) 738. As we stated in Jacobson v. Uptown Transfer & Storage Co. 268 Minn. 336, 342, 129 N. W. (2d) 41, 45 (quoting from Ogrosky v. Commonwealth Elec. Co. 172 Minn. 46, 47, 214 N. W. 765, 766):

“* * * In the absence of something to indicate that a discretionary power has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to legal usage, we are bound by the result. So long as such discretion is exercised judicially the result is beyond our reach. Its exercise depends not upon the application of rules of law but upon personal judgment.”

In the instant case the reasons cited by the commission in its memorandum preclude a finding of abuse of discretion. See, Jones v. Flour City Ornamental Iron Works, 271 Minn. 42, 134 N. W. (2d) 586.

Affirmed.

Minn. St. 175.36 provides in part: “The department of labor and industry and the workmen’s compensation commission are authorized to destroy the following files and records at the times and under the conditions herein specified:

“(1) All files, records and correspondence in the office of the industrial commission, covering the period prior to June 1, 1921;

“(2) All files and records subsequent thereto, covering the period of one year, on June first of each succeeding year.”

Although the Minnesota Legislature amended this statute in 1967 limiting the time to set aside earlier awards for cause to 8 years, such amendment would not affect the commission’s right to act upon relator’s motion since his award by stipulation was granted prior to such amendment.

Continue your research

Cases applying the commission's 'for cause' discretion under Minn. Stat. § 176.461 to petitions to vacate awards
Later cases addressing whether destruction of commission records affects petitions to reopen or vacate old workers' compensation awards
Secondary sources on the scope of judicial review of workers' compensation commission discretion in Minnesota

This page includes AI-generated summaries and analysis based on the full opinion text and citing cases. We believe the summaries are accurate, but you should always verify the holdings, quotes, and treatment data against the original opinion before relying on them in legal proceedings.

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