Case Title: Charles M. Zidich, Respondent, vs. National Cash Register Corp., and Hartford Insurance Group, Respondents, and Concraft Builders, Inc., and Employers Insurance of Wausau, Respondent and The Jamar Company and State Fund Mutual Ins. Co., Relators.

Citation: 

Docket Number: C1-96-412

State: minnesota

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Date: 1996-05-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT C1-96-412 Charles M. Zidich, Respondent, vs. National Cash Register Corp., and Hartford Insurance Group, Respondents, and Concraft Builders, Inc., and Employers Insurance of Wausau, Respondent, and The Jamar Company and State Fund Mutual Ins. Co., Relators. Considered and decided by the court en banc. O R D E R Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, WHEREAS, The Jamar Company and its workers' compensation liability insurer, State Fund Mutual Insurance Company, have sought review of a split decision of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals reversing the compensation judge's allocation of liability between them and Concraft Builders and its workers' compensation liability insurer, Employers Insurance of Wausau; and WHEREAS, even though equitable apportionment, as it has been established by judicial decision, is unaffected by Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4a, DeNardo v. Divine Redeemer Mem. Hosp., 450 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. 1990), the parties here had agreed to a determination of an allocation of liability pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 4a; and WHEREAS, this court has determined that the compensation judge's allocation of liability had the requisite evidentiary support for reasons articulated in the dissent to the majority opinion, Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54 (Minn. 1984); IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals, filed February 9, 1996, reversing the compensation judge's allocation of liability and order based thereon, be and the same is, reversed and the compensation judge's findings and order reinstated. This court adopts the rationale of the dissenting opinion in support of this decision. Dated: May 24, 1996 BY THE COURT: A.M.Keith Chief Justice