Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 176.411 (2026)

Rules Of Evidence, Pleading, And Procedure

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Conduct of hearings and investigations.

Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, when a compensation judge makes an investigation or conducts a hearing, the compensation judge is bound neither by the common law or statutory rules of evidence nor by technical or formal rules of pleading or procedure. Hearsay evidence which is reliable is admissible. The investigation or hearing shall be conducted in a manner to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties.

Findings of fact shall be based upon relevant and material evidence only, as presented by competent witnesses, and shall comport with section 176.021.

Subd. 2.Depositions.

Except where a compensation judge orders otherwise, depositions may be taken in the manner which the law provides for depositions in civil actions in district court.

Subd. 3.Hospital records as evidence.

A hospital record relating to medical or surgical treatment given an employee is admissible as evidence of the medical and surgical matters stated in the record, but it is not conclusive proof of such matters.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases, 1954–2004 · leading case: Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc., 685 N.W.2d 12 (Minn. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc., 685 N.W.2d 12 (Minn. 2004). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 176.411 (2002). "While compensation judges are not `constitutionally protected,' they do have a certain degree of independence from the agency in which they adjudicate disputes as they are the people who have been charged with the responsibility of ascertaining the…”

Kahl v. Minnesota Wood Specialty, Inc., 277 N.W.2d 395 (Minn. 1979). · cites it 3× “” The employee, in support of the order, points to § 176.411, subd. 1, which provides: “Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, when the worker’s compensation court of appeals, a judge of the worker’s compensation court of appeals or compensation judge makes an…”

Moes v. City of St. Paul, 402 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. 1987). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 176.411, subd. 1 (1980), provides a worker’s compensation court or judge with broad discretion over the conduct of a hearing: Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, when a compensation judge makes an investigation or conducts a hearing, the compensation judge…”

Heine v. Simon, 674 N.W.2d 411 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 176.411 (2002). Reliable hearsay is admissible.”

Hirsch v. Bartley-Lindsay Co., 537 N.W.2d 480 (Minn. 1995). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 176.411. While compensation judges are not “constitutionally protected,” they do have a certain degree of independence from the agency in which they adjudicate disputes as they are the people who have been charged with the responsibility of ascertaining the…”

Chillstrom v. Trojan Seed Co., 65 N.W.2d 888 (Minn. 1954). · cites it 2× “8 In determining the competency of evidence within the meaning of § 176.411 we have pursued the spirit of the workmen’s compensation act by adopting a liberal policy in extending the exceptions to the hearsay rule.”

Gutz v. Honeywell, Inc., 399 N.W.2d 557 (Minn. 1987). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 176.411 (1984) (the compensation judge, though required to decide on competent evidence, “is bound neither by the common law or statutory rules of evidence nor by technical or formal rules of pleading or procedure”).”

Jendro v. Brown Boveri Turbo Mach. Co., 355 N.W.2d 716 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 2× “5, it is not “competent evidence” complying with the requirement of Minn.Stat. § 176.411, subd. 1 (1982), that findings of fact “shall be based upon competent evidence only and shall comport with section 176.”

Harrison v. Schafer Constr. Co., 244 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. 1976). “It is this expertise that underlies the liberal rules of procedure exemplified by § 176.411, subd. 1. A strict construction of the final sentence of that subdivision so as to apply technical rules of evidence in the review of the compensation board’s findings is inconsistent…”

Springborg v. Wilson & Co., 73 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. 1955). “Under § 176.411 the referee is not bound by common-law or statutory rules of evidence nor by technical or formal rules of pleading or procedure.”

Koch v. Arnesen, 322 N.W.2d 362 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 6× “On the other hand, Minn. Stat. § 176.411 , subd. 1 (1980), says that findings “shall be based upon competent evidence only,” but qualifies this by saying that when the compensation judge or the court of appeals makes an investigation or conducts a hearing it is “bound neither by…”

Bey v. Oxford Props., Inc., 481 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. 1992). · cites it 2× “, Minn. Stat. § 176.411 , subd. 1 (1990), the strictures on the admissibility of an IME report and any evidence relating thereto, such as depositions, is indeed surprising and somewhat disconcerting.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

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.