Case Name: Robin LEHTO, Respondent, v. COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, and Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance/Cambridge Integrated Services, Relators; Lakewalk Surgery Center, Respondent, and Edward A. Spawn, Respondent, v. National Steel Pellet Company, Self-Insured Security Fund/Sedgewick James, Relators; Lakewalk Surgery Center, Respondent, and Connie M. Stemper, Respondent, v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. and Sedgewick Claims/CNA, Relators, Lakewalk Surgery Center, Respondent
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 2008-06-25
Citations: 751 N.W.2d 585
Docket Number: No. A08-379
Parties: Robin LEHTO, Respondent, v. COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, and Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance/Cambridge Integrated Services, Relators, Lakewalk Surgery Center, Respondent, and Edward A. Spawn, Respondent, v. National Steel Pellet Company, Self-Insured Security Fund/Sedgewick James, Relators, Lakewalk Surgery Center, Respondent, and Connie M. Stemper, Respondent, v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. and Sedgewick Claims/CNA, Relators, Lakewalk Surgery Center, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 751
Pages: 585–585

Head Matter:
Robin LEHTO, Respondent, v. COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, and Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance/Cambridge Integrated Services, Relators, Lakewalk Surgery Center, Respondent, and Edward A. Spawn, Respondent, v. National Steel Pellet Company, Self-Insured Security Fund/Sedgewick James, Relators, Lakewalk Surgery Center, Respondent, and Connie M. Stemper, Respondent, v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. and Sedgewick Claims/CNA, Relators, Lakewalk Surgery Center, Respondent.
No. A08-379.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
June 25, 2008.
Dennis W. Hagstrom, Fergus Falls, MN, for relator.
Michael I. Cohen, Orman, Nord, Spott & Hurd, Duluth, MN, Diana Lynn Bouschor Dodge, Johnson, Killen & Seiler, Duluth,
MN, Edward A. Spawn, Goodland, MN, for respondent.

Opinion:
ORDER
Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals filed January 30, 2008, be, and the same is, affirmed without opinion. See Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 366 (Minn.1982) (explaining that "[sjummary affirmances have no prece-dential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view," doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lorie S. Gildea Associate Justice