It is the intent of the legislature that chapter 176 be interpreted so as to assure the quick and efficient delivery of indemnity and medical benefits to injured workers at a reasonable cost to the employers who are subject to the provisions of this chapter. It is the specific intent of the legislature that workers' compensation cases shall be decided on their merits and that the common law rule of "liberal construction" based on the supposed "remedial" basis of workers' compensation legislation shall not apply in such cases. The workers' compensation system in Minnesota is based on a mutual renunciation of common law rights and defenses by employers and employees alike. Employees' rights to sue for damages over and above medical and health care benefits and wage loss benefits are to a certain degree limited by the provisions of this chapter, and employers' rights to raise common law defenses such as lack of negligence, contributory negligence on the part of the employee, and others, are curtailed as well. Accordingly, the legislature hereby declares that the workers' compensation laws are not remedial in any sense and are not to be given a broad liberal construction in favor of the claimant or employee on the one hand, nor are the rights and interests of the employer to be favored over those of the employee on the other hand.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
88
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case:
O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros., 549 N.W.2d 889 (Minn. 1996).
Darrel Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp., 852 N.W.2d 669 (Minn. 2014).
· cites it 17× “Steel), alleging, among other things, retaliatory-discharge and threat-to-discharge claims under the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), Minn. Stat. §§ 176.001 -.862 (2012). After various proceedings below, we granted U.”
Correa v. Waymouth Farms, Inc., 664 N.W.2d 324 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 8× “" Minn.Stat. § 176.001 (2002). The purpose of the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act (Act) is to provide "a measure of security to workers injured on the job, with the burden of that expense considered a proportionate part of the expense of production.”
Gunderson v. Harrington, 632 N.W.2d 695 (Minn. 2001).
· cites it 12× “2d at 763 (quoting Minn.Stat. § 176.001 (1998)). In reaching its decision, the court cited Fox v.”
Daniel v. City of Minneapolis, 923 N.W.2d 637 (Minn. 2019).
· cites it 2× “44 (2018), and the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 176.001 -.862 (2018). He claims that the City violated the human rights act by not allowing him to wear doctor-prescribed tennis shoes inside the station house, which, he alleges, was a reasonable…”
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Ctr., 811 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 2012).
· cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 176.001 (2010). Cost containment for employers subject to the Act is a legitimate objective of the Legislature.”
Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Co., LLC, Relators, & Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown Surgery Ctr., & Minnesota Dep't of Human Servs./BRS, Intervenors., 875 N.W.2d 289 (Minn. 2016).
· cites it 2× “The Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 176.001 -.862 (2014), does not define the word “voluntary.”
Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp., 831 N.W.2d 656 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “1, part of the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), Minn. Stat. §§ 176.001 -.862 (2012), provides a cause of action for threatening to discharge an employee for seeking workers’ compensation benefits independent of claims for retaliatory discharge and intentional…”
Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc., 685 N.W.2d 12 (Minn. 2004).
· cites it 4× “The employer and insurer and the Fund, appearing as amicus curiae, assert that this court does not have jurisdiction to hear, consider, and decide the matter.”
Gibberd Ex Rel. Gibberd v. Control Data Corp., 424 N.W.2d 776 (Minn. 1988).
· cites it 4× “[8] The 1983 statute amended Minn.Stat. § 176.001 (1986) by adding thereto: It is the specific intent of the legislature that workers' compensation cases shall be decided on their merits and that the common law rule of `liberal construction' based on the supposed `remedial'…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.