Albert v. Paper Calmenson & Co.
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 2003, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Paternity of JMV (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)
- Valento v. Swenson (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)
- Blatz v. Allina Health System (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)
- Drake v. Reile's Transfer & Delivery, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)
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
ORDER
Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions of Paper Calmenson & Company and MAK Oil Company for further review of a decision of the court of appeals, 515 N.W.2d 59, be, and the same are, granted for the limited purpose of allocating the proceeds of the suit brought by the employee against the third party who was entitled to Lambert-son contribution from the employer. The mechanics of the allocation that includes a Lamberbson obligation are that the “third party tortfeasor * ⅜ * should pay the entire verdict * ⅜ * to the plaintiff. The employer should then contribute to the third party tortfeasor an amount proportionate to its percentage of negligence, but not to exceed the amount of workers’ compensation benefits payable to the employee [and] the employee * ⅜ * should then reimburse the employer pursuant to 176.061, subd. 6(c).” *461 Johnson v. Raske Building Systems, 276 N.W.2d 79, 81 (1979). The employer’s maximum contribution liability is determined by computing the subrogation interest which includes benefits paid and payable. See Kempa v. E.W. Coons Co., 370 N.W.2d 414 (Minn. 1985). When allocated according to Johnson, PaCal should pay Albert the entire verdict ($1,962,108). The employer, MAK Oil, should then contribute to PaCal the amount proportionate to its percentage of negligence, but not to exceed the amount of workers’ compensation benefits payable to Albert ($654,036). Albert should then reimburse MAK Oil pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 176.061, subd. 6(c) ($362,121), leaving MAK Oil with the credit of $334,216 against future benefits.
The petitions for further review are in all other respects denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of the Workers’ Compensation Reinsurance Association for leave to participate as amicus curiae is denied.
BY THE COURT:
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.