Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ...
Headline: Workers' Comp: Claimant Fails to Prove Medical Necessity and Waiver
Citation:
Brief at a Glance
Injured workers must prove medical treatments are necessary and reasonable; employers don't waive rights by simply not objecting immediately.
- Document all medical treatments meticulously, including doctor's notes, diagnoses, and cost breakdowns.
- Obtain explicit written confirmation from healthcare providers detailing why each treatment is medically necessary and causally related to the work injury.
- Be prepared to present expert testimony or evidence to support the reasonableness of treatment costs if challenged.
Case Summary
Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ..., decided by Minnesota Supreme Court on April 30, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. This case concerns a dispute over workers' compensation benefits for a claimant who suffered a work-related injury. The claimant argued that the employer and its insurer were liable for ongoing medical expenses and lost wages. The court affirmed the findings of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals, holding that the claimant failed to prove the necessity and reasonableness of the disputed medical treatments and that the employer's actions did not constitute a waiver of their right to contest the claims. The court held: The court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals' decision, finding that the claimant did not meet their burden of proving the medical necessity and reasonableness of the disputed medical treatments.. The claimant's argument that the employer waived its right to contest the medical expenses by failing to object within a specific timeframe was rejected, as the court found no evidence of such a waiver.. The court reiterated that the claimant bears the responsibility of demonstrating that the medical services received were both necessary for the treatment of the work-related injury and that the charges for those services were reasonable.. The employer and insurer were not found liable for the disputed medical expenses because the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.. The court's decision was based on a review of the evidence presented and the applicable workers' compensation statutes and case law.. This decision reinforces the claimant's burden of proof in workers' compensation cases regarding the necessity and reasonableness of medical treatment. It clarifies that employers and insurers are not automatically liable for all requested medical services and that specific evidentiary standards must be met. Future claimants must ensure robust documentation and expert support for their medical claims.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
If you get hurt at work, your employer must pay for necessary medical care. However, you need to prove that the treatment you received was both required by your injury and reasonably priced. The court ruled that the injured worker in this case couldn't get paid for certain treatments because they didn't provide enough proof. The employer also didn't automatically agree to pay just by not immediately objecting to everything.
For Legal Practitioners
This decision reinforces the employee's burden to establish the necessity and reasonableness of disputed medical treatments under Minn. Stat. § 176.135, subd. 1(a). The court's affirmation of the WCCA's findings highlights the importance of presenting sufficient evidence, such as expert testimony, to support claims for medical expenses and disability benefits. The ruling also clarifies that passive inaction by the employer/insurer does not constitute a waiver of their right to contest claims.
For Law Students
This case illustrates the application of the 'necessity and reasonableness' standard for medical benefits in Minnesota workers' compensation. The employee failed to meet their burden of proof, leading to the denial of specific treatments and disability benefits. It also demonstrates that waiver requires an intentional relinquishment of a known right, not mere silence or delay.
Newsroom Summary
A Minnesota court has ruled that injured workers must prove their medical treatments are both necessary and reasonably priced to receive workers' compensation benefits. The court denied benefits in this case because the worker did not provide enough evidence for certain treatments. The ruling also clarified that employers don't automatically have to pay for everything just by not immediately saying no.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals' decision, finding that the claimant did not meet their burden of proving the medical necessity and reasonableness of the disputed medical treatments.
- The claimant's argument that the employer waived its right to contest the medical expenses by failing to object within a specific timeframe was rejected, as the court found no evidence of such a waiver.
- The court reiterated that the claimant bears the responsibility of demonstrating that the medical services received were both necessary for the treatment of the work-related injury and that the charges for those services were reasonable.
- The employer and insurer were not found liable for the disputed medical expenses because the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.
- The court's decision was based on a review of the evidence presented and the applicable workers' compensation statutes and case law.
Key Takeaways
- Document all medical treatments meticulously, including doctor's notes, diagnoses, and cost breakdowns.
- Obtain explicit written confirmation from healthcare providers detailing why each treatment is medically necessary and causally related to the work injury.
- Be prepared to present expert testimony or evidence to support the reasonableness of treatment costs if challenged.
- Understand that 'waiver' in workers' compensation requires intentional action, not just inaction or delay by the insurer.
- Consult with a workers' compensation attorney early in the process to ensure all evidentiary requirements are met.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
De novo review, as the case involves the interpretation of workers' compensation statutes and the application of legal principles to undisputed facts.
Procedural Posture
The case reached the Minnesota Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA). The WCCA had affirmed the compensation judge's denial of certain medical expenses and temporary total disability benefits.
Burden of Proof
The employee (relator) bears the burden of proving the necessity and reasonableness of medical treatments and the causal relationship between the work injury and the need for those treatments. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Tests Applied
Workers' Compensation Act - Medical Benefits
Elements: Necessity of medical treatment · Reasonableness of medical treatment · Causal relationship between work injury and need for treatment
The court affirmed the WCCA's finding that the relator failed to prove the necessity and reasonableness of the disputed medical treatments, specifically the chiropractic treatments and the functional capacity evaluation. The evidence presented did not establish that these treatments were required by the work injury or that they were reasonably priced.
Workers' Compensation Act - Waiver
Elements: Intent to relinquish a known right · Knowledge of the right
The court rejected the relator's argument that the employer and insurer waived their right to contest the medical expenses. The court found no evidence that the employer or insurer intentionally relinquished their right to challenge the necessity or reasonableness of the treatments, noting that they actively contested the claims.
Statutory References
| Minn. Stat. § 176.135, subd. 1(a) | Medical examinations and treatments — This statute governs the employer's liability for necessary medical treatments and services related to a work injury. The relator's claim for medical expenses was evaluated under this statute. |
| Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 1 | Temporary total disability — This statute addresses temporary total disability benefits. The relator sought these benefits, but the court affirmed the denial based on the lack of proof of ongoing disability causally related to the work injury. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
"An employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the medical treatment was both necessary and reasonable."
"The employer and insurer are liable for all medical, chiropractic, and surgical treatment, as well as hospitalization, dental and drugstore care, medicines, and prosthetic devices, or any other similar service, which the nature of the injury requires."
"Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right."
Remedies
Affirmed the denial of ongoing medical expenses for disputed treatments.Affirmed the denial of temporary total disability benefits.
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- Document all medical treatments meticulously, including doctor's notes, diagnoses, and cost breakdowns.
- Obtain explicit written confirmation from healthcare providers detailing why each treatment is medically necessary and causally related to the work injury.
- Be prepared to present expert testimony or evidence to support the reasonableness of treatment costs if challenged.
- Understand that 'waiver' in workers' compensation requires intentional action, not just inaction or delay by the insurer.
- Consult with a workers' compensation attorney early in the process to ensure all evidentiary requirements are met.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You suffered a back injury at work and your doctor recommends a series of expensive physical therapy sessions and a specialized brace. Your employer's workers' compensation insurer is questioning whether these are truly necessary.
Your Rights: You have the right to necessary and reasonable medical treatment related to your work injury. However, you must be able to provide evidence, potentially from medical experts, that these specific treatments are essential and that their cost is fair.
What To Do: Gather all medical records, doctor's notes, and bills related to the recommended treatments. Consult with your treating physician to obtain a detailed explanation of why each treatment is necessary and how it directly relates to your work injury. If possible, get a second opinion or expert testimony to support the reasonableness of the costs.
Scenario: After a workplace accident, you received some initial medical treatment paid for by workers' compensation. Now, you need further specialized care, but the insurer is slow to respond to your requests and hasn't explicitly denied them.
Your Rights: You have the right to necessary medical care. While the insurer's delay might seem like acceptance, this ruling suggests that inaction alone doesn't automatically mean they've agreed to pay. You still need to ensure the necessity and reasonableness are established.
What To Do: Do not assume the insurer will pay for future treatments without explicit approval. Continue to provide documentation and justifications for the proposed care. If the insurer remains unresponsive or denies the care, you may need to file a formal dispute with the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal for my employer to refuse to pay for a medical treatment recommended by my doctor after a work injury?
Depends. Your employer is generally liable for medical treatments that are proven to be both necessary for your work-related injury and reasonable in cost. If they refuse, it may be because they dispute the necessity or reasonableness, or believe the treatment is unrelated to the injury. You would need to present evidence to prove your case, potentially through the workers' compensation system.
This applies to Minnesota workers' compensation law as interpreted in this opinion.
Can my workers' compensation insurer deny payment for physical therapy if I don't have a doctor's note explicitly stating it's 'necessary'?
Yes, it's likely they can deny it, and the court would likely uphold that denial if you cannot prove necessity. While a doctor's recommendation is strong evidence, the ultimate burden is on you, the employee, to demonstrate through a preponderance of the evidence that the treatment was both necessary and reasonable for your work injury.
This principle is established under Minnesota workers' compensation law.
Practical Implications
For Injured workers seeking medical benefits
Workers must be prepared to actively prove the necessity and reasonableness of all claimed medical treatments, not just rely on a doctor's recommendation. This may require obtaining additional expert opinions or detailed justifications, increasing the effort and potential cost involved in pursuing claims.
For Workers' compensation insurers and employers
The ruling reinforces their ability to contest claims for medical treatments if the employee fails to meet the burden of proof regarding necessity and reasonableness. It also clarifies that passive acceptance or delay in responding does not automatically equate to a waiver of their right to contest.
Related Legal Concepts
The legal requirement that a work injury must be the direct cause of the conditi... Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their claims or allegations. Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases, requiring that a claim be more likely... Estoppel
A legal principle that prevents someone from asserting something contrary to wha...
Frequently Asked Questions (36)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (5)
Q: What is Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... about?
Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... is a case decided by Minnesota Supreme Court on April 30, 2025.
Q: What court decided Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ...?
Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... was decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court, which is part of the MN state court system. This is a state supreme court.
Q: When was Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... decided?
Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... was decided on April 30, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ...?
The citation for Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What did the court decide in the Bjornson v. McNeilus Companies case?
The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals' decision, denying the injured worker's claim for certain medical expenses and lost wages. The court found the worker failed to prove the necessity and reasonableness of the disputed treatments.
Legal Analysis (14)
Q: Is Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... published?
Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What was the ruling in Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ...?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & .... Key holdings: The court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals' decision, finding that the claimant did not meet their burden of proving the medical necessity and reasonableness of the disputed medical treatments.; The claimant's argument that the employer waived its right to contest the medical expenses by failing to object within a specific timeframe was rejected, as the court found no evidence of such a waiver.; The court reiterated that the claimant bears the responsibility of demonstrating that the medical services received were both necessary for the treatment of the work-related injury and that the charges for those services were reasonable.; The employer and insurer were not found liable for the disputed medical expenses because the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.; The court's decision was based on a review of the evidence presented and the applicable workers' compensation statutes and case law..
Q: Why is Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... important?
Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... has an impact score of 15/100, indicating narrow legal impact. This decision reinforces the claimant's burden of proof in workers' compensation cases regarding the necessity and reasonableness of medical treatment. It clarifies that employers and insurers are not automatically liable for all requested medical services and that specific evidentiary standards must be met. Future claimants must ensure robust documentation and expert support for their medical claims.
Q: What precedent does Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... set?
Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... established the following key holdings: (1) The court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals' decision, finding that the claimant did not meet their burden of proving the medical necessity and reasonableness of the disputed medical treatments. (2) The claimant's argument that the employer waived its right to contest the medical expenses by failing to object within a specific timeframe was rejected, as the court found no evidence of such a waiver. (3) The court reiterated that the claimant bears the responsibility of demonstrating that the medical services received were both necessary for the treatment of the work-related injury and that the charges for those services were reasonable. (4) The employer and insurer were not found liable for the disputed medical expenses because the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. (5) The court's decision was based on a review of the evidence presented and the applicable workers' compensation statutes and case law.
Q: What are the key holdings in Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ...?
1. The court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals' decision, finding that the claimant did not meet their burden of proving the medical necessity and reasonableness of the disputed medical treatments. 2. The claimant's argument that the employer waived its right to contest the medical expenses by failing to object within a specific timeframe was rejected, as the court found no evidence of such a waiver. 3. The court reiterated that the claimant bears the responsibility of demonstrating that the medical services received were both necessary for the treatment of the work-related injury and that the charges for those services were reasonable. 4. The employer and insurer were not found liable for the disputed medical expenses because the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. 5. The court's decision was based on a review of the evidence presented and the applicable workers' compensation statutes and case law.
Q: What cases are related to Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ...?
Precedent cases cited or related to Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ...: 226 Minn. 404, 33 N.W.2d 574 (1948); Minn. Stat. § 176.135.
Q: What does 'necessity and reasonableness' mean for medical treatments in workers' compensation?
It means the treatment must be essential to address the work-related injury (necessity) and the cost of the treatment must be fair and appropriate (reasonableness). The employee must prove both elements.
Q: Who has the burden of proof for medical treatment claims in Minnesota workers' compensation?
The injured employee (relator) has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the medical treatments claimed were both necessary and reasonable.
Q: Can an employer or insurer be considered to have 'waived' their right to contest medical bills?
Waiver requires an intentional relinquishment of a known right. In this case, the court found no evidence that the employer or insurer intentionally gave up their right to contest the claims, rejecting the argument that their actions constituted a waiver.
Q: What specific treatments were disputed in this case?
The disputed treatments included chiropractic treatments and a functional capacity evaluation. The court upheld the denial of benefits for these because the employee did not sufficiently prove their necessity and reasonableness.
Q: What statute governs medical benefits in Minnesota workers' compensation?
Minn. Stat. § 176.135, subd. 1(a) governs the employer's liability for necessary medical treatments and services related to a work injury.
Q: Does this ruling mean employers never have to pay for chiropractic care?
No, it doesn't mean that. It means that in this specific case, the injured worker failed to provide sufficient proof that the chiropractic care was both necessary for the work injury and reasonably priced, as required by law.
Q: Can I get temporary total disability benefits if my injury prevents me from working?
Yes, you can be eligible for temporary total disability benefits if you are unable to work due to a work-related injury. However, as seen in this case, you must prove the ongoing disability is causally related to the work injury.
Q: Does this ruling affect claims for injuries that happened before the decision date?
Generally, court rulings apply retroactively unless the court specifies otherwise. However, the specific application to past cases can depend on various legal factors, and it's best to consult an attorney.
Practical Implications (6)
Q: How does Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... affect me?
This decision reinforces the claimant's burden of proof in workers' compensation cases regarding the necessity and reasonableness of medical treatment. It clarifies that employers and insurers are not automatically liable for all requested medical services and that specific evidentiary standards must be met. Future claimants must ensure robust documentation and expert support for their medical claims. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: What happens if my employer's workers' compensation insurer doesn't respond quickly to a request for treatment approval?
This case suggests that inaction or delay by the insurer does not automatically mean they agree to pay. You still need to prove the necessity and reasonableness of the treatment, and you may need to formally dispute the claim if it's eventually denied.
Q: How can I ensure my medical treatments are considered 'necessary' and 'reasonable'?
Provide detailed documentation from your doctor explaining why the treatment is essential for your work injury and how it relates to your recovery. Be prepared to justify the costs, potentially with evidence of standard rates for similar treatments.
Q: What if my doctor recommends a treatment that seems very expensive?
You will need to be prepared to show that the cost is reasonable compared to similar treatments or services. Evidence of usual and customary charges or expert testimony on pricing might be necessary.
Q: Is there a time limit to dispute a workers' compensation claim denial?
Yes, there are strict statutory deadlines for filing claims and appeals in workers' compensation cases. It is crucial to act promptly and consult with an attorney to ensure you don't miss any deadlines.
Q: What are the potential consequences if I don't prove necessity and reasonableness?
If you fail to prove that a medical treatment was necessary and reasonable, the workers' compensation insurer will likely not be required to pay for it, and you may be personally responsible for those costs.
Historical Context (2)
Q: What is the history of workers' compensation laws in Minnesota?
Minnesota's workers' compensation system was established to provide a no-fault system for injured workers, ensuring medical care and wage replacement. The specific statutes, like Minn. Stat. § 176.135, have been interpreted and refined through court decisions over time.
Q: How has the interpretation of 'necessity' evolved in workers' compensation cases?
The concept of necessity has consistently required a direct link between the treatment and the work injury. Courts look for evidence that the treatment is essential for diagnosis, cure, or relief, rather than merely beneficial or elective.
Procedural Questions (6)
Q: What was the docket number in Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ...?
The docket number for Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... is A240454. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... be appealed?
Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Q: What is the standard of review used by the Minnesota Supreme Court in this case?
The court applied a de novo standard of review, meaning they examined the legal issues anew without giving deference to the lower court's interpretation of the law.
Q: What is a writ of certiorari?
A writ of certiorari is an order from a higher court to a lower court to send up the records of a case for review. It's how certain cases, like this workers' compensation appeal, reach the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Q: What is the role of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA)?
The WCCA reviews decisions made by compensation judges. Its findings can then be appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court via a writ of certiorari, as happened in this case.
Q: What if I disagree with the compensation judge's initial decision?
You have the right to appeal the compensation judge's decision to the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA). If you disagree with the WCCA's decision, you may be able to seek review by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- 226 Minn. 404, 33 N.W.2d 574 (1948)
- Minn. Stat. § 176.135
Case Details
| Case Name | Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... |
| Citation | |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Date Filed | 2025-04-30 |
| Docket Number | A240454 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | affirmed |
| Impact Score | 15 / 100 |
| Significance | This decision reinforces the claimant's burden of proof in workers' compensation cases regarding the necessity and reasonableness of medical treatment. It clarifies that employers and insurers are not automatically liable for all requested medical services and that specific evidentiary standards must be met. Future claimants must ensure robust documentation and expert support for their medical claims. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Workers' Compensation Medical Benefits, Burden of Proof in Workers' Compensation, Medical Necessity of Treatment, Reasonableness of Medical Charges, Waiver of Rights in Insurance Claims, Workers' Compensation Appeals Process |
| Jurisdiction | mn |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & ... was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Workers' Compensation Medical Benefits or from the Minnesota Supreme Court:
-
Andrew Vernard Glover v. State of Minnesota
Minnesota Supreme Court · 2026-04-01
-
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Herbert A. Igbanugo, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0191139. ...
Minnesota Supreme Court · 2026-04-01
-
In re Petition for Reinstatement of Registration No. 0191139
Minnesota Supreme Court · 2026-04-01
-
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Tillman
Minnesota Supreme Court · 2026-04-01
-
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Madelyne Zielinski
Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms DWI and Test Refusal Convictions Against ZielinskiMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-25
-
State of Minnesota v. Scot Perry Christian
Minnesota Supreme Court Affirms Scot Perry Christian's Murder Convictions, Upholding Exclusion of Third-Party Perpetrator EvidenceMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-25
-
Petition of Minnesota Housing Finance New Certificate of Title After Mortgage Foreclosure Sale Certificate No. 112938 – ...
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's Foreclosure Voided Due to Failure to Provide Statutory Notice to HomeownerMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-18
-
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby
Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms Drug Convictions, Upholding Search Warrant Based on Probable CauseMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-18