Case Name: Joan Van RIPER, Employee-Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. 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
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 2016-01-27
Citations: 874 N.W.2d 242
Docket Number: No. A15-1156
Parties: Joan Van RIPER, Employee-Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. 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.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 874
Pages: 242–242

Head Matter:
Joan Van RIPER, Employee-Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. 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.
No. A15-1156.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Jan. 27, 2016.
Donaldson V. Lawhead, Lawhead Law Offices, Austin, MN, for respondent. .
Timothy S. Crom and Nicholas M. Matchen, Jardine, Logan & O’Brien, PLLP, Lake Elmo, MN, for relators.

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 and served on June 26, 2015, 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).
Employee is awarded $1,200 in attorney fees-.
BY THE COURT: •
/s/_-Natalie E. Hudson Associate Justice