Blanks v. Oak Ridge Nursing Home
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 2017, 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
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hohlt v. University of Minnesota (Minn. 2017)
- Gibberd Ex Rel. Gibberd v. Control Data Corp. (Minn. 1988)
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
Relator, a nurse’s aide who sustained injury in a fall on a boulevard adjacent to a frontage road in front of her employer’s nursing home while coming to work, seeks review of a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals denying her compensation on the ground that her injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. We affirm.
Although we have recognized exceptions to the so-called “premises requirement” set forth in Minn.St. 176.011, subd. 16, this case does not come within any of them. Relator fell on a public boulevard. As in Satack v. State, Dept. of Public Safety, 275 N.W.2d 556 (Minn. 1978), where an employee fell on a public sidewalk close to her place of employment, the hazard to which relator was exposed was not one incident or causally related to her employment but instead one no greater than that to which all others not so employed would be exposed if they chose to traverse the boulevard. Her claim that the frontage road was in effect an employees’ parking lot, bringing the case within the rule of Goff v. Farmers Union Accounting Service, Inc., 308 Minn. 440, 241 N.W.2d 315 (1976), is not persuasive since all drivers as members of the public were free to park along the road and the employer at no time directed or suggested that employees park there.
We conclude that this case is indistinguishable from Satack and that the principles enunciated in that decision require af-firmance.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.