Home/Supreme Court of Minnesota/Joan Van Riper, Employee-Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Interstate Packaging, Inc. Employer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Cincinnati Insurance Company, Insurer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Mason City Clinic, Mason City Surgery Center, Mayo Clinic, Minnesota Department of Employment Economic Development, Spectrum Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, and, UNUM Life Insurance Company, Intervenors.

Joan Van Riper, Employee-Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Interstate Packaging, Inc. Employer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Cincinnati Insurance Company, Insurer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Mason City Clinic, Mason City Surgery Center, Mayo Clinic, Minnesota Department of Employment Economic Development, Spectrum Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, and, UNUM Life Insurance Company, Intervenors.

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided February 3, 2016·No. A15-1156·Published

Opinion

STATE OF MINNESOTA

prJanuary 27, 2016

IN SUPREME COURT Om~EOF APPB.I.AJECcurn

AlS-1156

Joan Van Riper,

Employee-Respondent/ Cross-Appellant,

vs. Interstate Packaging, Inc.

Employer-Relator/ Cross-Appeal Respondent, and

Cincinnati Insurance Company,

Insurer-Relator/ Cross-Appeal Respondent, and

Mason City Clinic, Mason City Surgery Center, Mayo Clinic, Minnesota Department of Employment Economic Development, Spectrum Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, and, UNUM Life Insurance Company,

Intervenors.

Donaldson V. Lawhead, Lawhead Law Offices, Austin, Minnesota, for respondent.

Timothy S. Crom and Nicholas M. Matchen, Jardine, Logan & O'Brien, PLLP, Lake Elmo, Minnesota, for relators.

Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision ofthe Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals filed and served on June 26, 2015, be, and the same is, affirmed without opinion. See Hoffv. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 366 (Minn. 1982) (explaining that "[s]ummary affnmances have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view," doing no more than establishing the law of the case).

Employee is awarded $1,200 in attorney fees.

Dated: January 27, 2016

BY 1HE COURT:

Natalie E. Hudson

Associate Justice

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Joan Van Riper, Employee-Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Interstate Packaging, Inc. Employer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Cincinnati Insurance Company, Insurer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Mason City Clinic, Mason City Surgery Center, Mayo Clinic, Minnesota Department of Employment Economic Development, Spectrum Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, and, UNUM Life Insurance Company, Intervenors., (Mich. 2016).

Joan Van Riper, Employee-Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Interstate Packaging, Inc. Employer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Cincinnati Insurance Company, Insurer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Mason City Clinic, Mason City Surgery Center, Mayo Clinic, Minnesota Department of Employment Economic Development, Spectrum Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, and, UNUM Life Insurance Company, Intervenors. (Joan Van Riper, Employee-Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Interstate Packaging, Inc. Employer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Cincinnati Insurance Company, Insurer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Mason City Clinic, Mason City Surgery Center, Mayo Clinic, Minnesota Department of Employment Economic Development, Spectrum Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, and, UNUM Life Insurance Company, Intervenors.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hoff v. Kempton
317 N.W.2d 361 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1982)