Julie A. Bourgoin, Respondent, vs. The Gillette Company, Self-Insured/ESIS, Relator.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A11-2288 Julie A. Bourgoin, Respondent, vs. The Gillette Company, Self-Insured/ESIS, Relator. ___________________________ Jason Schmickle, Aafedt, Forde, Gray, Monson & Hagar, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for relator. Sean M. Quinn, Stephanie Balmer, Falsani, Balmer, Peterson, Quinn & Beyer, Duluth, Minnesota, for respondent. ___________________________ Considered and decided by the court without oral argument. 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 November 23, 2011, be and the same is, affirmed without opinion. See Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 366 (Minn. 1982) (explaining that [s]ummary affirmances have no precedential value because they do not commit the 1 court to any particular point of view, doing no more than establishing the law of the case). Dated: June 7, 2012 BY THE COURT: /s/ Christopher J. Dietzen Associate Justice 2
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.
