SETTLEMENTS. The decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals is affirmed regarding the ambiguity of the parties’ settlement agreement, reversed regarding the claim for reimbursement of medical expenses, and remanded to the compensation judge for findings of fact regarding the reasonableness and necessity of the medical treatment at issue.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded without opinion.
Attorneys: David B. Kempston, Law Office of Thomas D. Mottaz, Coon Rapids, Minnesota, for Respondent. Robin Simpson and James D. Connor, Aafedt, Forde, Gray, Monson & Hager, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Relators.
CHUTICH, Justice.
In an opinion filed May 20, 2016, the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals reversed the findings and order of the compensation judge regarding the ambiguity of the parties stipulation for settlement and respondent’s claim for reimbursement of certain expenses. Rochel v. Schwan’s Home Serv., No. WC15-5884, 2016 WL 3262915 (Minn. WCCA May 20, 2016).
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 20, 2016, be, and the same is, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded without opinion. The decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals is affirmed regarding the ambiguity of the parties’ settlement agreement, reversed regarding the claim for reimbursement of medical expenses, and remanded to the compensation judge for findings of fact regarding the reasonableness and necessity of the medical treatment at issue. See Hoff v. Kempton, 3l7 N.W.2d 361, 366 (Minn. 1982) (stating that summary dispositions “have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view,” doing “no more than establish[ing] the law of the case”).