Eigen v. Food Producers, Inc.
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.
- Krebsbach v. LAKE LILLIAN CO-OP. CREAM. ASS'N (Minn. 1984)
- Napper v. Boise Cascade Corp. (Minn. 1984)
- Krebsbach v. Lake Lillian Cooperative Creamery Ass'n (Minn. 1984)
- Maurer v. Braun's Locker Plant (Minn. 1980)
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 Workers’ Compensation Board vacating an earlier award based upon a settlement. This issue' is whether in so ordering the board abused its discretion. We hold that it did not.
By authority of Minn. St. 176.461 and 176.521, the board may, for cause, set aside an award based on a settlement. We have held “cause” to include newly discovered evidence or 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” 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 board found that there was good cause for reopening the award in the interests of justice and because new evidence existed that was material to a determination of the degree and extent of the employee’s disability. A memorandum accompanying its order pointed out that the employee’s condition had materially changed. We have examined the record and conclude that in so ruling the board did not abuse its discretion.
Respondent-employee is allowed $350 attorneys fees on this appeal.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.