(a) Except when a writ of certiorari has been issued by the supreme court and the matter is still pending in that court or if as a matter of law the determination of the supreme court cannot be subsequently modified, the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals, for cause, at any time after an award, upon application of either party and not less than five working days after written notice to all interested parties, may set the award aside and grant a new hearing and refer the matter for a determination on its merits to the chief administrative law judge for assignment to a compensation judge, who shall make findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order of award or disallowance of compensation or other order based on the pleadings and the evidence produced and as required by the provisions of this chapter or rules adopted under it.
(b) As used in this section, the phrase "for cause" is limited to the following:
(1) a mutual mistake of fact;
(2) newly discovered evidence;
(3) fraud; or
(4) a substantial change in medical condition since the time of the award that was clearly not anticipated and could not reasonably have been anticipated at the time of the award.
Notes of Decisions
Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co., 634 N.W.2d 401 (Minn. 2001).
· cites it 8× “[5] Prior to 1992, Minn.Stat. § 176.461 (1990) provided that a settlement award could be vacated "for cause" and our case law identified "cause" as fraud, mistake, newly discovered evidence, or substantial change in the employee's condition.”
Franke v. Fabcon, Inc., 509 N.W.2d 373 (Minn. 1993).
· cites it 6× “In arriving at this decision, the court applied the definition of “cause” required to vacate an *376 award contained in the 1992 amendments to Minn.Stat. § 176.461, as amended by Act of April 14, 1992, ch.”
Hudson v. Trillium Staffing, 896 N.W.2d 536 (Minn. 2017).
· cites it 6× “Ghelfi’s opinion, Hudson filed a petition to vacate the award under Minn. Stat. § 176.461 (2016). The WCCA found, also relying on Dr.”
Krebsbach v. Lake Lillian Coop. Creamery Ass'n, 350 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 26× “The petition to reopen was based upon Minn. Stat. § 176.461 (1982). 1 Subsequent to a March 1, 1983, hearing, the WCCA granted Lewis’ petition to reopen her claim.”
Sines v. Appel, 644 P.2d 331 (Idaho 1982).
· cites it 4× “In that regard it is similar to Minn. Stat. § 176.461 (1980), which provides in part: "[T]he workers compensation court of appeals, for cause, at any time after an award, upon application of either party .”
Krebsbach v. Lake Lillian Co-op. Cream. Ass'n, 350 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 26× “The petition to reopen was based upon Minn. Stat. § 176.461 (1982). [1] Subsequent to a March 1, 1983, hearing, the WCCA granted Lewis' petition to reopen her claim.”
Mach v. Wells Concrete Prods. Co., 866 N.W.2d 921 (Minn. 2015).
· cites it 3× “Minnesota Statutes § 176.461 provides a right for either party to reopen and seek modification of a workers’ compensation award.”
DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc., 256 N.W.2d 501 (Minn. 1977).
· cites it 3× “We held that once a claim petition has been timely filed, the jurisdiction of the court of appeals attaches allowing reopening and review of a prior decision.”
Monson v. White Bear Mitsubishi, 663 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 4× “That an award is made pursuant to a negotiated settlement rather than in a contested ease has no bearing on the justification for reopening.”
Radzak v. Mercy Hosp., 190 N.W.2d 86 (Minn. 1971).
· cites it 4× “(2) Whether sufficient cause was shown by employee under § 176.461 to sustain the commission’s order (a) vacating a referee’s decision which denied any compensation to the employee, and (b) remanding the matter for a new hearing.”
Karnes v. Quality Pork Processors, 532 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. §§ 176.461, 176.521 (1994). As we have explained, Workers’ compensation ⅜ ⅜ * is social legislation, providing 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.”
— Minn. Stat. § 176.461(3) — 1 case
— Minn. Stat. § 176.461(b) — 2 cases
— Minn. Stat. § 176.461(b)(4) — 1 case
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.