Bohnhoff v. ALLAN ENGINEERING COMPANY
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 1984, 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
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Lubinski v. Bros., Inc. (Minn. 1978)
- Krebsbach v. LAKE LILLIAN CO-OP. CREAM. ASS'N (Minn. 1984)
- Krebsbach v. Lake Lillian Cooperative Creamery Ass'n (Minn. 1984)
- Landon v. Donovan Construction Co. (Minn. 1978)
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
Relators seek review of an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission vacating an earlier award based upon a settlement. This issue is whether in so ordering, the commission abused its discretion. We hold that it did not.
By authority of Minn. St. 176.461 and 176.521, the commission may set aside an award based on a settlement for cause. We have held “cause” to include a substantial change in the employee’s condition. Wollschlager v. Standard Const. Co. 300 Minn. 550, 220 N. W. 2d 346 (1974); Mattson v. Abate, 279 Minn. 287, 156 N. W. 2d 738 (1968). The basic underlying concern in a determination of cause sufficient to set aside an award is “to assure a compensation proportionate to the degree and duration of disability.” Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 132, 5 N. W. 2d 499, 501 (1942).
In the instant case the commission found that there was good cause for reopening the award in that the employee’s medical condition had materially changed. We have examined the record and conclude that it reasonably supports this finding. We conclude that the commission did not abuse its discretion in vacating the award.
Respondent-employee is allowed $350 attorneys fees on this appeal.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.