 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mary Kohl successfully defeats attempt to vacate a judge's Findings and OrderBased on the arguments Mary Kohl submitted on behalf of our Client, the WCCA denied the employee’s petition to vacate the judge’s Findings & Order for fraud, The employee claimed a Gillette- injury to her neck and shoulder as a result of her duties on the employer’s packaging line. The compensation judge found the employee did not sustain a Gillette injury for several reasons. In the petition to vacate, the employee argued the employer's industrial engineer testified falsely with respect to how fast the equipment could be operated; his testimony contradicted the employee's testimony. The WCCA determined the employee had not established reliance by the compensation judge on the testimony nor that such reliance was the proximate cause of the decision, regardless of its accuracy. The Court stated the judge based her decision on her rejection of the employee’s testimony concerning the extent of the increase in line speed and the amount of shoulder-level work required which had nothing to do with whether the speed could be increased. The employee asked her doctors to assume a 50% increase in line speed on a specific date; the employee offered no evidence to support that assertion. Because the decision was not based on the testimony, but the employee’s failure to prove her case, the Court did not review the remaining Weise fraud factors and denied the petition. The WCCA decision is on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
http://www.workerscomp.state.mn.us/2008/Adams-01-08-08.htm
|
|
HOME / OUR FIRM / PRACTICE AREAS / ATTORNEYS / NEWS & RESOURCES / CONTACT US |
