Case Name: Mark D. SCHMITT, Respondent, v. INNOVATIVE LAWN SYSTEMS, INC., Respondent, and American Interstate Insurance Co., Respondent, and West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., Relator, and MN Dept. of Labor & Industry, Voc. Rehab. Unit, MN Dept. of Human Services, St. Paul Radiology, Regions Hospital, Intervenors, and Special Compensation Fund
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 2007-09-26
Citations: 739 N.W.2d 159
Docket Number: No. A07-1212
Parties: Mark D. SCHMITT, Respondent, v. INNOVATIVE LAWN SYSTEMS, INC., Respondent, and American Interstate Insurance Co., Respondent, and West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., Relator, and MN Dept. of Labor & Industry, Voc. Rehab. Unit, MN Dept. of Human Services, St. Paul Radiology, Regions Hospital, Intervenors, and Special Compensation Fund.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 739
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
Mark D. SCHMITT, Respondent, v. INNOVATIVE LAWN SYSTEMS, INC., Respondent, and American Interstate Insurance Co., Respondent, and West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., Relator, and MN Dept. of Labor & Industry, Voc. Rehab. Unit, MN Dept. of Human Services, St. Paul Radiology, Regions Hospital, Intervenors, and Special Compensation Fund.
No. A07-1212.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Sept. 26, 2007.
Matthew P. Bandt, Jardine, Logan & O’Brien, PLLP, Lake Elmo, MN, for relator West Bend Mutual Insurance Co.
John H. Guthmann, Trisha A. Vicario, Hansen, Dordell, Bradt, Odlaug & Bradt, PLLP, St. Paul, MN, for respondent Innovative Lawn Systems.
Jay T. Hartman, Tracy M. Borash, Hea-cox, Hartman, Koshmrl, Cosgriff & Johnson, PA, St. Paul, MN, for respondent American Interstate Ins. Co.
Thaddeus V. Jude, St. Paul, MN, Rory H. Foley, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, for Special Compensation Fund.

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 May 24, 2007, 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 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).
BY THE COURT:
/s/Helen M. Meyer Associate Justice