behind Minnesota’s workers’ compensation laws and the statutory scheme enacted by our Legislature to implement this theory support my conclusion. We have stated that Minnesota’s workers’ compensation system is one of mutual, reciprocal concessions by employers and employees. See Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 120-21, 257 N.W.2d 679, 684 (1977). For an injured worker, the system is designed to provide ‘guaranteed compensation’ from his or her employer for work-related injuries, ‘in exchange for forfeiting the right to sue the employer in tort.’ Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc., 685 N.W.2d 12, 17 (Minn.2004) (quoting Minn. Brewing Co. v. Egan & Sons Co., 574 N.W.2d 54, 58 (Minn.1998)); see also Matheson v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 126 Minn. 286, 294, 148 N.W. 71, 74-75 (1914) (<HOLDING>). In the past we have said that broad remedial
holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution holding that the workers compensation act does not violate either the united states or minnesota constitution despite employees waiver of the right to a jury trial and providing employers with exemption from commonlaw liabilities holding that once the workers compensation act provides a remedy it is exclusive and the employee has no right to bring an action in commonlaw negligence against his employer holding that injured employee has right to settle with thirdparty tortfeasor claims not covered by minnesota workers compensation act holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states