Case Name: Ronald FRANKFURTH, Relator (CO-83-1535), v. SUNSTAR FOODS, INC., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Respondents, Sunstar Foods, Inc. and Home Insurance Company, Respondents, Armour and Company, Self-Insured, Relator (C7-83-1533), Prudential Insurance Company, Respondent, State Treasurer, Custodian of the Special Compensation Fund, Respondent
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1984-11-21
Citations: 358 N.W.2d 53
Docket Number: Nos. C7-83-1533, C0-83-1535
Parties: Ronald FRANKFURTH, Relator (CO-83-1535), v. SUNSTAR FOODS, INC., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Respondents, Sunstar Foods, Inc. and Home Insurance Company, Respondents, Armour and Company, Self-Insured, Relator (C7-83-1533), Prudential Insurance Company, Respondent, State Treasurer, Custodian of the Special Compensation Fund, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 358
Pages: 53–54

Head Matter:
Ronald FRANKFURTH, Relator (CO-83-1535), v. SUNSTAR FOODS, INC., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Respondents, Sunstar Foods, Inc. and Home Insurance Company, Respondents, Armour and Company, Self-Insured, Relator (C7-83-1533), Prudential Insurance Company, Respondent, State Treasurer, Custodian of the Special Compensation Fund, Respondent.
Nos. C7-83-1533, C0-83-1535.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Nov. 21, 1984.
Timothy J. McCoy, Minneapolis, for relator Frankfurth.
Randee S. Held, Minneapolis, for relator Armour and Co.
Jeffrey B. Nelson, Minneapolis, for respondents Sunstar Foods Inc. & Home Ins. Co.
Mark M. Suby, St. Paul, for respondents Sunstar Foods & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
James M. Christenson, Minneapolis, for respondent Prudential Ins. Co.
Peter F. Nelson, St. Paul, for respondent Special Compensation Fund.

Opinion:
OPINION
TODD, Justice.
Ronald Frankfurth has received compensation for an injury sustained while employed by Armour and Company. Frank-furth was subsequently employed by Suns-tar where both he and Armour claim a new injury occurred. The compensation judge held that no new injury had occurred. The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed.
We hold that the Court of Appeals applied the proper standard of review and that the decision is not manifestly contrary to the evidence. See Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54 (Minn.1984) (filed herewith).
Affirmed.