Dotstry v. Radisson Hotel
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 1988, 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
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Gibberd Ex Rel. Gibberd v. Control Data Corp. (Minn. 1988)
- Spilman v. Morey Fish Co. (Minn. 1978)
- Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees (Minn. 1984)
- Madrigal v. Seeley (Minn. 1979)
- Smith v. Fenske's Suburban Sanitation (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
Lucille Dotstry seeks review of a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals determining that she did not sustain a personal injury arising out of and in the course of her employment as a maid at the Hotel Radisson in downtown Minneapolis. The court of appeals, with one member dissenting, set aside a contrary finding by the compensation judge and the consequent award to employee for temporary total disability. We affirm.
We have concluded that no useful purpose will be served by a recitation of the evidence. Essentially, the challenged finding is one which is predicated almost entirely upon the court of appeals’ assessment of the credibility of employee and of other former employees of the hotel who corroborated some of her testimony. We have held that when reviewing such findings we will not substitute our judgment for that of the court of appeals. Greene v. W & W Generator Rebuilders, 302 Minn. 542, 224 N.W.2d 157 (1974); Meyer v. Abel Signs, 306 Minn. 55, 236 N.W.2d 774 (1975). Moreover, although employee urges that the compensation judge, who credited the testimony in question, was in the best position to assess the witnesses’ credibility, the court of appeals is empowered to find the facts and may reverse a compensation judge on this issue. Minn.St. 176.421, subd. 6(3); Townsend v. Nelson, Minn., 242 N.W.2d 607 (1976). Since the evidence on the critical issue of a work-related injury was conflicting, under settled rules governing our scope of review we are compelled to accept the determination of the court of appeals.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.