The time within which the following acts shall be performed shall be limited to the following periods, respectively:
(a) Actions or proceedings by an injured employee to determine or recover compensation, three years after a written report of the injury has been made to the commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry, but not to exceed six years from the date of the accident.
(b) Actions or proceedings by dependents to determine or recover compensation, three years after the receipt by the commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry of written notice of death, given by the employer, but not to exceed six years from the date of injury, provided, however, if the employee was paid compensation for the injury from which the death resulted, such actions or proceedings by dependents must be commenced within three years after the receipt by the commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry of written notice of death, given by the employer, but not to exceed six years from the date of death. In any such case, if a dependent of the deceased, or any one in the dependent's behalf, gives written notice of such death to the commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry, the commissioner shall forthwith give written notice to the employer of the time and place of such death. In case the deceased was a native of a foreign country and leaves no known dependent within the United States, the commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry shall give written notice of the death to the consul or other representative of the foreign country forthwith.
(c) In case of physical or mental incapacity, other than minority, of the injured person or dependents to perform or cause to be performed any act required within the time specified in this section, the period of limitation in any such case shall be extended for three years from the date when the incapacity ceases.
(d) In the case of injury caused by x-rays, radium, radioactive substances or machines, ionizing radiation, or any other occupational disease, the time limitations otherwise prescribed by Minnesota Statutes 1961, chapter 176, and acts amendatory thereof, shall not apply, but the employee shall give notice to the employer and commence an action within three years after the employee has knowledge of the cause of such injury and the injury has resulted in disability.
Notes of Decisions
Axelberg v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 848 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2014).
· cites it 8× “We reached this conclusion despite the fact that the Workers’ Compensation Act is a complete system of law unknown to the common law and did not include an exception for estop-pel, see Minn.”
Marose v. Maislin Transp., 413 N.W.2d 507 (Minn. 1987).
· cites it 18× “In a finding which the WCCA left undisturbed, the compensation judge determined that employee's claims with respect to injuries sustained through November 4, 1974, were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, Minn.Stat. § 176.151, subd. 3 (1974), which required that any…”
Klimmek v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 487, 299 N.W.2d 501 (Minn. 1980).
· cites it 8× “This provision was deleted by the 1975 legislature when it extensively amended section 176.151. 1975 Minn.Laws, ch. 359, § 17.”
Bloese v. Twin City Etching, Inc., 316 N.W.2d 568 (Minn. 1982).
· cites it 12× “See Minn.Stat. § 176.151(4) (1980). It would appear that employee would receive the benefit of this extension under Klimmek v.”
Kahn v. State, 289 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1980).
· cites it 4× “Although the statute is, as the compensation judge noted, devoid of any language permitting such an extension, there is good reason to extend the period within which notice of claim must be given where an employee is mentally or physically unable to give notice.”
Savina v. Litton Indus./Litton Med. Sys., 330 N.W.2d 456 (Minn. 1983).
· cites it 8× “Litton contends that, because the employee’s claim petition was filed more than 6 years after the date of the accident, the employee’s claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, Minn.Stat. § 176.151(1) (1982). It is not disputed that the employee did not formally…”
Jones v. Thermo King, 461 N.W.2d 915 (Minn. 1990).
· cites it 8× “Under Minn. Stat. § 176.151 (1) (1988), a claim for benefits for personal injury must be brought within "three years after the employer has made written report of the injury to the commissioner of the department of labor and industry * * *.”
Fink v. Cold Spring Granite Co., 115 N.W.2d 22 (Minn. 1962).
· cites it 6× “18 [now § 176.151], except that in case of silicosis or asbestosis the claim may be filed with the commission within three years after the date of employee’s last exposure or within three years of the date of the last payment of compensation by the employer, or his default in…”
Roemhildt v. Gresser Companies, Inc., 729 N.W.2d 289 (Minn. 2007).
· cites it 4× “The statute of limitations contained in Minn.Stat. § 176.151 (2006) provides: The time within which the following acts shall be performed shall be limited to the following periods, respectively: (1) Actions or proceedings by an injured employee to determine or recover…”
Neuberger v. Hennepin Cnty. Workhouse, 340 N.W.2d 330 (Minn. 1983).
· cites it 4× “Minn. Stat. § 176.151 , subd. 1 (1982). Joseph Neuberger sought compensation for a heart attack he suffered on October 22, 1976, while an employee of the Hennepin County Workhouse.”
DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc., 256 N.W.2d 501 (Minn. 1977).
· cites it 3× “1971, § 176.151(1). Employee petitioned for a writ of certiorari following the denial of his petition for reargument.”
Lauer v. Tri-Mont Coop. Creamery, 178 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. 1970).
· cites it 8× “The commission has determined that the death of Emil Schmidt arose out of and during the course of his employment by TriMont Cooperative Creamery, but that the claim for benefits is precluded by § 176.151 which provides in part: “The time within which the following acts shall be…”
— Minn. Stat. § 176.151(1) — 12 cases
Marose v. Maislin Transp., 413 N.W.2d 507 (Minn. 1987).
“In a finding which the WCCA left undisturbed, the compensation judge determined that employee's claims with respect to injuries sustained through November 4, 1974, were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, Minn.Stat. § 176.151, subd. 3 (1974), which required that any…”
Savina v. Litton Indus./Litton Med. Sys., 330 N.W.2d 456 (Minn. 1983).
“Litton contends that, because the employee’s claim petition was filed more than 6 years after the date of the accident, the employee’s claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, Minn.Stat. § 176.151(1) (1982). It is not disputed that the employee did not formally…”
DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc., 256 N.W.2d 501 (Minn. 1977).
“1971, § 176.151(1). Employee petitioned for a writ of certiorari following the denial of his petition for reargument.”
— Minn. Stat. § 176.151(2) — 4 cases
Lauer v. Tri-Mont Coop. Creamery, 178 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. 1970).
“The commission has determined that the death of Emil Schmidt arose out of and during the course of his employment by TriMont Cooperative Creamery, but that the claim for benefits is precluded by § 176.151 which provides in part: “The time within which the following acts shall be…”
— Minn. Stat. § 176.151(3) — 3 cases
Klimmek v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 487, 299 N.W.2d 501 (Minn. 1980).
“This provision was deleted by the 1975 legislature when it extensively amended section 176.151. 1975 Minn.Laws, ch. 359, § 17.”
Marose v. Maislin Transp., 413 N.W.2d 507 (Minn. 1987).
“In a finding which the WCCA left undisturbed, the compensation judge determined that employee's claims with respect to injuries sustained through November 4, 1974, were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, Minn.Stat. § 176.151, subd. 3 (1974), which required that any…”
— Minn. Stat. § 176.151(4) — 3 cases
Jones v. Thermo King, 461 N.W.2d 915 (Minn. 1990).
“Under Minn. Stat. § 176.151 (1) (1988), a claim for benefits for personal injury must be brought within "three years after the employer has made written report of the injury to the commissioner of the department of labor and industry * * *.”
Bloese v. Twin City Etching, Inc., 316 N.W.2d 568 (Minn. 1982).
“See Minn.Stat. § 176.151(4) (1980). It would appear that employee would receive the benefit of this extension under Klimmek v.”
— Minn. Stat. § 176.151(6) — 2 cases
Kahn v. State, 289 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1980).
“Although the statute is, as the compensation judge noted, devoid of any language permitting such an extension, there is good reason to extend the period within which notice of claim must be given where an employee is mentally or physically unable to give notice.”
— Minn. Stat. § 176.151(7) — 1 case
Bloese v. Twin City Etching, Inc., 316 N.W.2d 568 (Minn. 1982).
“See Minn.Stat. § 176.151(4) (1980). It would appear that employee would receive the benefit of this extension under Klimmek v.”
— Minn. Stat. § 176.151(a) — 2 cases
Axelberg v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 848 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2014).
“We reached this conclusion despite the fact that the Workers’ Compensation Act is a complete system of law unknown to the common law and did not include an exception for estop-pel, see Minn.”
— Minn. Stat. § 176.151(c) — 1 case
Axelberg v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 848 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2014).
“We reached this conclusion despite the fact that the Workers’ Compensation Act is a complete system of law unknown to the common law and did not include an exception for estop-pel, see Minn.”
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.