Unless the employer has actual knowledge of the occurrence of the injury or unless the injured worker, or a dependent or someone in behalf of either, gives written notice thereof to the employer within 14 days after the occurrence of the injury, then no compensation shall be due until the notice is given or knowledge obtained. If the notice is given or the knowledge obtained within 30 days from the occurrence of the injury, no want, failure, or inaccuracy of a notice shall be a bar to obtaining compensation unless the employer shows prejudice by such want, defect, or inaccuracy, and then only to the extent of the prejudice. If the notice is given or the knowledge obtained within 180 days, and if the employee or other beneficiary shows that failure to give prior notice was due to the employee's or beneficiary's mistake, inadvertence, ignorance of fact or law, or inability, or to the fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit of the employer or agent, then compensation may be allowed, unless the employer shows prejudice by failure to receive the notice, in which case the amount of compensation shall be reduced by a sum which fairly represents the prejudice shown. Unless knowledge is obtained or written notice given within 180 days after the occurrence of the injury no compensation shall be allowed, except that an employee who is unable, because of mental or physical incapacity, to give notice to the employer within 180 days from the injury shall give the prescribed notice within 180 days from the time the incapacity ceases.
Notes of Decisions
Kahn v. State, 289 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1980).
· cites it 20× “Compensation was nevertheless denied, because the compensation judge found that the University did not have actual knowledge or notice within 90 days of the accident, as required by Minn.Stat. § 176.141 (1971). In June 1978, after taking more evidence on the issue of notice, the…”
Issacson v. Minnetonka, Inc., 411 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 1987).
· cites it 8× “2 Essential to proof of a claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act is a showing that the employer had timely notice or knowledge of the employee’s injury within the statutory period.”
Anderson v. Frontier Commc'ns, 819 N.W.2d 143 (Minn. 2012).
· cites it 14× “For an employee to receive workers’ compensation benefits, and subject to several exceptions not applicable here, Minn. Stat. § 176.141 (2010) requires either that the employee give written notice of injury to the employer, or that the employer have actual knowledge of the…”
Freyholtz v. Blackduck Sch. Dist. 32, 613 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 2000).
· cites it 10× “Minn.Stat. § 176.141 (1998). Where notice is provided to the employer more than 30 days but less than 180 days from the occurrence of the injury, compensation is still payable if the employee "shows that failure to give prior notice was due to the employee's * * * mistake,…”
Fink v. Cold Spring Granite Co., 115 N.W.2d 22 (Minn. 1962).
· cites it 4× “The employer contended that the statute involved, § 176.141, was not satisfied by the mere knowledge of.”
Pojanowski v. Hart, 178 N.W.2d 913 (Minn. 1970).
· cites it 3× “Section 176.141 provides in part that the employer must either be given written notice or have actual knowledge of the occurrence of injury within 90 days after the occurrence or-no compensation shall be allowed.”
Beson v. Carleton Coll., 136 N.W.2d 82 (Minn. 1965).
· cites it 3× “Although there is no decision of our court dealing directly with the time limitation included in § 176.”
Potter v. Midland Cooperatives, Inc., 80 N.W.2d 59 (Minn. 1956).
· cites it 2× “Was the award of compensation invalid for the reason that employer obtained neither knowledge nor written notice of the accident within 90 days after the occurrence of the injury as required by § 176.141? No report of the accident was made at any time prior to March 4,1954, when…”
Greene v. W & W Generator Rebuilders, 224 N.W.2d 157 (Minn. 1974).
· cites it 2× “The compensation commission found that employee complained to his superiors that the heavier work was bothering his back and that these complaints of employee and his leaving for further surgery a short while thereafter were sufficient to put a reasonable man on notice to…”
Rebiski v. Pioneer Tel. Co., 262 N.W.2d 424 (Minn. 1978).
· cites it 2× “The notice period in § 176.141 may, in effect, be tolled if the injury which the employee sustained is deemed trivial, and the statutory time for giving notice then begins to run from the time when it becomes reasonably apparent that the injury has resulted in or is likely to…”
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.