Jon Deines, Respondent, vs. Custom Log Buildings/Uninsured, Respondent, and Black Bear Homes, Inc./Acuity Mutual Insurance Company, Relators, and SMDC Health System, Intervenor, and Special Compensation Fund.

Annotate this Case
Jon Deines, Respondent, vs. Custom Log Buildings/Uninsured, Respondent, and Black Bear Homes, Inc./Acuity Mutual Insurance Company, Relators, and SMDC Health System, Intervenor, and Special Compensation Fund. A05-1316, Supreme Court Order, October 6, 2005.

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT

A05-1316

 

 

Jon Deines,

 

            Respondent,

 

vs.

 

Custom Log Buildings/Uninsured,

 

                                    Respondent,

 

and

 

Black Bear Homes, Inc./Acuity Mutual

Insurance Company,

 

                                    Relators,

 

and

 

SMDC Health System,

 

                                    Intervenor,

 

and

 

Special Compensation Fund.

 

 

            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 June 6, 2005, be, and the same is, affirmed without opinion.  See Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 366 (Minn. 1982) (summary dispositions 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:  September 29, 2005

 

 

                                                                                    BY THE COURT:

           

 

                                                                                        /s/                                                                                                                                       

Sam Hanson

Associate Justice

 

 

ANDERSON, Russell A., 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.