Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Minnesota Supreme Court, 1990

Knowlen v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc.

Knowlen v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc.
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided October 26, 1990 · Simonett
461 N.W.2d 488; 1990 Minn. LEXIS 313; 1990 WL 161362 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Thomas J. Misurek, Pustorino, Peterson, Tilton & Parrington, Minneapolis, for appellant., Luke M. Seifert, St. Cloud, for respondent.

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)

Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision

Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Knowlen v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc.

Minnesota statutes cited

Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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

SIMONETT, Justice.

This matter is before this court on a writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirming a compensation judge’s award of benefits but reversing the compensation judge’s finding pertaining to maximum medical improvement.

The relators challenge the compensation judge’s findings pertaining to an award of temporary total benefits for up to 90 days past maximum medical improvement. No purpose would be served in restating the facts involved in this case. It is *489sufficient, that upon a careful review of the proceedings herein, it is the opinion of this court that the findings pertaining to the causal relationship between the employee’s 1987 back injury and subsequent wage loss as well as findings pertaining to rehabilitation efforts were 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 relators also challenge the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals’ reversal of the compensation judge’s finding pertaining to the date of maximum medical improvement following the back injury on grounds that the compensation judge “failed” to consider a prior unrelated carpal tunnel injury, an issue neither raised at the compensation hearing level nor addressed by any of the parties on appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals. Generally, the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals’ review is limited to the issues raised by the parties. Bradford v. Bureau of Engraving, 459 N.W.2d 697 (Minn. 1990); Ruether v. State of Minnesota, Mankato State University, 455 N.W.2d 475, 479 (Minn. 1990); Minn.Stat. § 176.421, subd. 6 (1988). The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals’ reversal of the finding pertaining to the date of maximum medical improvement is therefore reversed, and the compensation judge’s finding is reinstated.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.