Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 176.662 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1973 c 643 s 12; 1976 c 2 s 164]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1960–1980 · leading case: Notch v. Victory Granite Co., 238 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 1976).
Notch v. Victory Granite Co., 238 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 1976). “1971, § 176.662, require conclusive evidence of employee’s claim where, immediately prior to his “disablement,” he was exposed to the inhalation of silica dust over a period of 14 years in his employment with employer? *501 Application of the time limitations of the Workmen’s…”
McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal Co., 288 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1980). “It does this by requiring the claimant who lacks conclusive evidence of occupational causation to show that he has suffered a specified length of exposure to dust inhalation. In the absence of such a showing, section 85A.”
Kress v. Minneapolis-Moline Co., 102 N.W.2d 497 (Minn. 1960). “” Section 176.662 provides in part: “In cases of silicosis or asbestosis complicated with tuberculosis of the lungs causing total disability or death compensation is payable as and for uncomplicated silicosis or asbestosis when the silicosis or asbestosis is an essential factor…”
Adams v. Nadave, 245 N.W.2d 227 (Minn. 1976). “1971, § 176.662, after removal from employment because of an occupational disease.”
Douglass v. Gresen Mfg. Co., 217 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. 1974). “Consideration must also be given to § 176.662, *85 which permits the commission under given conditions, as was done here, to remove an employee with an occupational disease from hazardous employment.”
Denio v. W. Alloyed Steel Castings Co., 103 N.W.2d 384 (Minn. 1960). “2; and that it erred in applying the provisions of §§ 176.662 and 176.664. We cannot say as a matter of law that the decision of the commission is unwarranted by the evidence.”
Spangrud v. Precision Grinding Co., 281 N.W.2d 362 (Minn. 1979). “1971, § 176.662, and that a factfinding in a prior compensation proceeding requires reversal of the decision under review.”
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.