Court Opinion

ID: 9666806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:27:49.153744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:41.904117
License: Public Domain

LANSING, Judge
(concurring specially).
I agree that the arbitrators denied setoff of the workers’ compensation payments, but I concur in allowing what appears to be a double recovery only because I believe Kerst-ing and Austin are controlling. See Austin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 486 N.W.2d 457 (Minn.App.), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 4, 1992); Kersting v. Royal-Milbank Ins., 456 N.W.2d 270 (Minn.App.1990).