Anthony Laska, Respondent, vs. Metropolitan Council, Self-Insured, Respondent, and Special Compensation Fund, Relator.

Annotate this Case
Anthony Laska, Respondent, vs. Metropolitan Council, Self-Insured, Respondent, and Special Compensation Fund, Relator. C1-01-572, Supreme Court Order, July 5, 2001.

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT

 

C1-01-572

 

 

Anthony Laska,

 

                                    Respondent,

 

vs.

 

Metropolitan Council, Self-Insured,

 

                                    Respondent,

 

and

 

Special Compensation Fund,

 

                                    Relator.

 

Donald Flower,

 

                                    Respondent,

 

vs.

 

Metropolitan Council, Self-Insured,

 

                                    Respondent,

 

and

 

Special Compensation Fund,

 

                                    Relator.

 

 

            Considered and decided by the court en banc.

 

O R D E R

 

            Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

 

 

            IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals filed February 28, 2001, be, and the same is, affirmed without opinion.  See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(b).

            Each employee is awarded $600 in attorney fees.

            Dated:   June 28, 2001

 

           

                                                                                    BY THE COURT:

                                               

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                /s/Russell A. Anderson

                                                                                    Associate Justice

 

 

 

            PAGE, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.