Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 176.471 (2026)

Review By Supreme Court On Certiorari

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Subdivision 1.Time for seeking review; grounds.

Where the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals has made an award or disallowance of compensation or other order, a party in interest who acts within 30 days from the date the party was served with notice of the order may have the order reviewed by the supreme court on certiorari upon one of the following grounds:

(1) the order does not conform with this chapter;

(2) the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals committed any other error of law; or

(3) the findings of fact and order were unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.

Subd. 2.Extension of time for seeking review or for filing other papers.

Where cause is shown within the 30-day period referred to in subdivision 1, the supreme court may extend the time for seeking review on certiorari. The supreme court may also extend the time for filing any other paper which this chapter requires to be filed with that court.

Subd. 3.Service of writ; filing fee.

To effect a review upon certiorari, the party shall serve a writ of certiorari upon the administrator of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals within the 30-day period referred to in subdivision 1. The party shall also at this time pay to the clerk of the appellate courts the fee prescribed by rule 116.03 of the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.

Subd. 4.Contents of writ.

The writ of certiorari required by subdivision 3 shall show that a review is to be had in the supreme court of the proceedings of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals upon which the order is based.

Subd. 5.Bond.

The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals may, upon motion of any respondent and a showing that extraordinary circumstances warrant the requirement of a cost bond, order that a bond be provided as prescribed by rule 107.02 of the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.

Subd. 6.Transmittal of fee and return.

When the writ of certiorari has been served upon the administrator of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals, the bond has been filed, and the filing fee has been paid, the administrator shall immediately transmit to the clerk of the appellate courts that filing fee and the return to the writ of certiorari and bond.

Subd. 7.Jurisdiction vested.

Filing such return and payment of the filing fee referred to in subdivision 6 vests the supreme court with jurisdiction of the case.

Subd. 8.Return of proceedings transmitted to court.

Within 30 days after the writ of certiorari, bond, and filing fee have been filed with the administrator of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals, the administrator shall transmit to the clerk of the appellate courts a true and complete return of the proceedings of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals under review, or the part of those proceedings necessary to allow the supreme court to review properly the questions presented.

The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals shall certify the return of the proceedings under its seal. The petitioner or relator shall pay to the administrator of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals the reasonable expense of preparing the return.

Subd. 9.Application of rules governing appeals in civil actions.

When the return of the proceedings before the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals has been filed with the clerk of the appellate courts, the supreme court shall hear and dispose of the matter as in other civil cases.

Subd. 10.Rules.

The supreme court may adopt rules which are consistent with this chapter and necessary or convenient to the impartial and speedy disposition of these cases.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Kelly Dennis v. The Salvation Army & Chesterfield Servs., Inc., Relators, & HealthEast Physician Servs., HealthEast St. John's Hosp., High Pointe Surgery Ctr., Minnesota Dep't of Human Servs./BRS, St. Croix Orthopaedics, & Nurse Anesthesia Servs., P.A., Intervenors., 874 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kelly Dennis v. The Salvation Army & Chesterfield Servs., Inc., Relators, & HealthEast Physician Servs., HealthEast St. John's Hosp., High Pointe Surgery Ctr., Minnesota Dep't of Human Servs./BRS, St. Croix Orthopaedics, & Nurse Anesthesia Servs., P.A., Intervenors., 874 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. 2016). · cites it 32× “Minn.Stat. § 176.471, subd. 1. On April 28, 2015, within the 30 days, relators filed a petition for a writ of certio-rari with the clerk of the appellate courts, and in return, the clerk provided relators with a conformed writ.”

Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc., 685 N.W.2d 12 (Minn. 2004). · cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 176.471, subd. 1 (2002). "A new and popular reform in the workers' compensation movement are laws allowing employers and unions to opt out of the state-run adjudicatory system and collectively bargain workers' compensation.”

Irwin v. Surdyk's Liquor, 599 N.W.2d 132 (Minn. 1999). · cites it 4× “This court, however, retains authority to review all decisions of the WCCA to ensure that the WCCA's order conforms to the Workers' Compensation Act, that the WCCA has not committed any other error of law, and that the order and the findings of fact are supported by substantial…”

Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 176.471, subd. 1(3), as amended by 1983 Minn.”

Mach v. Wells Concrete Prods. Co., 866 N.W.2d 921 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 2× “Wells petitioned for certiorari review under Minn.Stat. § 176.471 (2014). I. The appeal involves res judicata and collateral estoppel.”

Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 149 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. 1967). · cites it 4× “) It would seem that under this provision the commission's findings were justifiably made and must be held free from error.”

Webster v. Hennepin Cnty., 910 N.W.2d 420 (Minn. 2018). · cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. § 176.471 (2016). In Questar , we applied a statutory standard of review as required by Minn.”

Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., 820 N.W.2d 16 (Minn. 2012). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 176.471, subd. 8 (2010) (stating that once a petition for certiorari has been filed, the administrator of the WCCA “shall transmit to the .”

Hodge v. Hodge Constr., 376 N.W.2d 694 (Minn. 1985). · cites it 4× “At this time, employee again contends that the WCCA failed to apply the appellate review standard set forth in Minn.Stat. § 176.471 (1984) as explicated in Hengemuhle .”

Monson v. White Bear Mitsubishi, 663 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. 2003). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 176.471 (2002). I. At the outset, it is worth bearing in mind that a workers’ compensation claim is not a private personal injury tort claim.”

Jackson v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 375 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 1985). · cites it 2× “The matter is before the court pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 176.471, subd. 1(1) (1984) providing for review by certiorari when a party alleges that a WCCA order does not conform with the provisions of the Minnesota workers’ compensation statutes.”

Winnifred Hillerns v. Minnesotan Hotel & Others, 135 N.W.2d 63 (Minn. 1965). · cites it 4× “9 of § 176.471 does appear applicable. It states: “When the return of the proceedings before the commission has been filed with the clerk of the supreme court, the supreme court shall hear and dispose of the matter in accordance with the laws and court rules governing appeals in…”

Show all 26 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.