Court Opinion

ID: 9689309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:27:21.183577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:46.890920
License: Public Domain

TODD, Justice
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent. The majority opinion is a comprehensive, excellent factual analysis of the record. However, because it is a factual matter, we are departing from our longstanding rule of not substituting our view of the facts for that of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals. This is not a case of a factual error such as occurred in Turay v. Allied Enterprises, Inc., 256 N.W.2d 71 (Minn.1977). There we reversed a decision awarding compensation for injury to a right knee where the record disclosed medical treatment to the left knee. Here, as the majority opinion candidly admits, reasonable minds can differ as to whether or not the claimant’s move to a different geographical area constitutes withdrawal from the labor market. The fact that we may have initially decided the fact question differently should not be the basis for reversal of a disputed factual issue. I would not abandon our longstanding rule whereby we refuse to substitute our judgment for that of the Court of Appeals on factual issues especially as in this ease where the factual finding is not unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. Minn.Stat. § 15;0425(e) (1980).