Court Opinion

ID: 9519629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:20:43.619439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:34.430311
License: Public Domain

Murphy, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The referee who heard the witnesses stated in his memorandum:
“* * * [T]he argument, altercation and eventual shooting arose from the fund shortage or the ejection from the premises and appears to be work related under either version and thus within the scope of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It would seem a little more weight should be given to the petitioner’s version of the argument as the assailant subsequently admitted pilfering funds and made restitution.”
I would reverse under authority of Blattner v. Loyal Order of Moose, 264 Minn. 79, 117 N. W. (2d) 570; Simonson v. Knight, 174 Minn. 491, 219 N. W. 869; and Olson v. Trinity Lodge, 226 Minn. 141, 32 N. W. (2d) 255.