Minnesota Supreme Court, 1973

O'Connor v. Schleck

O'Connor v. Schleck
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 13, 1973
296 Minn. 484; 206 N.W.2d 554; 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1234 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Raymond W. Fitch, for relators., W. M. Lasley, for respondent.

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 1979, 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

O'Connor v. Schleck

Cases that cite this one

2 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 was granted to review a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (1) awarding death benefits upon findings by a majority of the commission (which reversed contrary findings by a compensation judge) that the employee’s heart attack and resulting death were work-related, and (2) denying employer-insurer’s petitions to reopen to take additional evidence.

Applying oft-repeated rules governing our scope of review of factual findings based upon conflicting testimony of both lay and expert witnesses, we are satisfied that there is ample evidence to support the commission’s finding of causal relationship between decedent’s work activities, his heart attack, and his resulting death. See, Grabowski v. Great Northern Oil Co. 283 Minn. 205, 167 N. W. 2d 14 (1969); Dudovitz v. Shoppers City, Inc. 282 Minn. 322, 164 N. W. 2d 873 (1969). There is also ample justification to sustain the commission’s discretionary refusal to reopen the proceeding upon a determination that the additional evidence sought to be submitted by the employer-insurer on rehearing was neither “new” or “significant” nor unavailable at the time of the hearing on the merits.

Respondent is allowed attorney’s fees, payable to her attorney, in the amount of $400.

Affirmed.

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