Bradford v. Bureau of Engraving
Can I rely on this case?
Yes — no negative treatment found
- —
Analysis generated from citing opinions in this archive. Not legal advice.
Bradford v. Bureau of Engraving
Opinion of the Court
Certiorari to review a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirming a compensation judge’s denial of benefits but reversing, by majority decision, an award of attorney fees.
The relator challenges the finding that she failed to give the employer timely notice of her injury within the statutory period. No purpose would be served in restating the facts involved in this appeal. It is sufficient, that upon a careful review of the proceedings herein, it is the opinion of this court that the finding pertaining to statutory notice is not manifestly contrary to the evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54 (Minn. 1984).
The relator also challenges the Workers’ Compensation Court reversal of
Relator is awarded $400 in attorney fees on appeal.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
. Edquist v. Browning-Ferris, 380 N.W.2d 787 (Minn. 1986).
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Carol A. BRADFORD, Relator v. BUREAU OF ENGRAVING and Employers Insurance of Wausau, Bureau of Engraving and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Group Health, Inc., intervenor, Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Plan/DCA Inc., intervenor
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published