Court Rulings

1. The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals' affirmance of the compensation judge's finding that the employee has compensable post-traumatic stress disorder is not manifestly contrary to the evidence because the compensation judge based his conclusion on the employee's credibility and the persuasiveness of an expert diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. 2. In accord with our decision in Smith v. Carver County, 931 N.W.2d 390, 396–97 (Minn. 2019), compensation judges may review the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria when considering the persuasiveness of expert reports, but judges may not use those criteria to make their own diagnosis of a claimant's condition. Affirmed.

This is a divorce action involving, inter alia, the classification of property, equitable valuation and division of marital property, and support for an alleged disabled adult child beyond the age of 21. After our exhaustive review, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court's determinations in this matter. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment in all respect.

Jurisdiction Industrial Commission Jurisdiction of Superior Court Third-Party Complaint Exclusivity Provision of Workers Compensation Act Indemnification and Contribution

The plaintiff financing company sought to recover damages from the defen- dants, a limited liability company and its principal, D, for breach of contract in connection with the defendants' alleged failure to make payments under a motor vehicle lease agreement. After the defendants were defaulted for failure to appear, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment and rendered a default judgment for the plaintiff. Less than four months later, and more than two years after the plaintiff had commenced its action, the defendants moved to open and set aside the default judgment pursuant to statute ((Rev. to 2019) § 52-212). In an affidavit accompanying the motion to open, D attested that the vehicle in question had serious defects that made it dangerous to operate and that the defendants had declared the lease void and returned the vehicle to the car dealership from which it was leased. D further attested that he mistakenly thought that the case had been resolved, that there were good defenses to the plaintiff's action, including breach of warranties and misrepresentations, and that the defendants would file a counter- claim when the judgment was opened. The plaintiff objected, and, after a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to open, concluding that the motion had been untimely filed and had no basis. The defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, which acknowledged that the trial court incorrectly had determined that the motion was untimely but determined that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying the motion on the ground that it had no basis. On the granting of certification, the defendants appealed to this court. Held that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying the defendants' motion to open, and, accordingly, this court reversed the Appellate Court's judgment and remanded with direction to reverse the trial court's judgment and for further proceedings: This case

Appellant-mother B.D.M. (mother) challenges the termination of her parental rights regarding her child, K.W., arguing that the district court abused its discretion in determining that termination of her parental rights is in the best interests of the child. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Relator appeals from an unemployment-law judge's (ULJ) decision that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit her employment without good reason. Relator seeks reversal of the ULJ's decision, arguing that respondent employer's failure to act in response to her reports of the suspected abuse of a vulnerable resident constituted a good reason for quitting. We affirm.

On appeal from final judgment in this home-construction dispute, appellant-owner brings numerous claims challenging the district court's (1) grant of summary judgment to respondent real-estate professionals on his third-party claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, vicarious liability, and unauthorized practice of law; (2) denial of his motion to amend his answer to add direct claims against respondent-subcontractor; and (3) determination that respondent-contractor's mechanic's liens were perfected. By notice of related appeal, respondent-contractor challenges the district court's denial of its motions in limine regarding damages evidence. We affirm.