Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 176. WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 176.15 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1953 c 755 s 83]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1943–1989 · leading case: Ross v. N. States Power Co., 442 N.W.2d 296 (Minn. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ross v. N. States Power Co., 442 N.W.2d 296 (Minn. 1989). · cites it 2× “135, subdivision 1(a) and, when considered alone, covers nursing services regardless of the employee’s degree of disability.”
Toenberg v. Harvey, 49 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. 1951). · cites it 2× “08, which provides the manner in which split coverage may be permitted, as follows: “* * * Nothing herein contained shall prevent any employer, with the approval of the industrial commission, from excluding medical and hospital benefits as required in section 176.15. An employer…”
Casey v. N. States Power Co., 77 N.W.2d 67 (Minn. 1956). · cites it 2× “1949, § 176.15, providing for medical and surgical treatment to cure and relieve from the effects of the injury.”
Castle v. City of Stillwater, 51 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 1952). · cites it 2× “Section 176.15 requires the employer to furnish such medical treatment as may be reasonably necessary to “cure and relieve” from the effects of a compensable injury.”
Stephen v. Miles Constr. Co., 60 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 1953). · cites it 3× “12; and medical and surgical benefits, § 176.15. None of the three may be deemed to be mutually exclusive.”
Fehland v. City of St. Paul, 9 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. 1943). “1941, § 176.15 (Mason St. 1927, § 4279).”
Ingebritson v. Tjernlund Mfg. Co., 183 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. 1971). “1949, § 176.15, in 1953 conditionally to permit “Christian Science treatment in lieu of medical treatment.”
Mattila v. Oliver Iron Mining Co., 46 N.W.2d 82 (Minn. 1951). · cites it 2× “In case of Ms inability or refusal seasonably to do so the employer shall be liable for the reasonable expense incurred by or on behalf of the employee in providing the same.”
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.