W.M. Schlosser Co. v. Uninsured Employer's Fund

How later courts described this case

• explaining that the Commission's conclusions are adequately supported as long as "a reasoning mind reasonably could have reached the factual conclusion" reached by the Commission
• stating that in a workers’ compensation case, “the first question to be resolved is whether [the claimant] is a ‘covered employee’ ”
• the Fund’s purpose is “benevolent and remedial, that being ‘to protect injured workers whose employers failed, either willfully or negligently, to carry workers’ compensation insurance for them.’ ”
• cautioning that appellate review does not include reviewing factual findings

Written by the judges who cited it.