THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY  
Minneapolis attorney Michael E. Douglas Attorney at Law
  Minneapolis Personal Injury Attorney
  St. Paul Workers Compensation Lawyer work comp attorney
 > About Me
   :: My Commitment
   :: Our Community
   
 > Legal Practice Areas
  twin cities comsumer lawPersonal Injury
   :: Traffic Accidents
   :: Medical Malpractice
   :: Social Security Disability
   :: Premises Liability
   :: Wrongful Death
   :: Dog Bite
   :: Back/Spinal/Neck Injuries
   :: Whiplash
   :: Defective Medical Devices
   :: Defective Drugs
  Minnesota Personal InjuryWorkers Compensation
  St. Paul personal injuryConsumer Law
   :: Debt Collection
   :: Repossessions
   :: Foreclosures
   :: Loan, Credit, Banking
   :: Arbitration Agreements
   :: Deception and Fraud
   :: Auto Fraud / Lemon Law
   :: Warranties
   :: Predatory Lending
   
 > Contact Us
   :: Contact Us
 

Law Offices of Michael E. Douglas
P.O. Box 251551
Woodbury, Minnesota 55125-6551
   

Saint Paul Lawyer
 
 mdouglas@injurylawstpaul.com

 

UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

Lyle Berman,
Appellant,

vs.

Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand, LLP,
Respondent.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Lyle Berman challenges the judgment dismissing his
legal-malpractice action for failure to comply with the expert-review
statute. Because the district court did not err in its application of
the statute and did not abuse its discretion in ruling that no good
cause existed to allow an extension of the filing deadline, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-81

Barbara N. Canter,
Relator,

vs.

Cahill Salon and Tan Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment & Economic Development,
Respondent.
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Relator Barbara N. Canter challenges the decision of the
unemployment law judge (ULJ) that she is disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits because of employment misconduct. Because we
conclude that the record reasonably supports the department's final
decision and Canter's conduct constituted employment misconduct, we
affirm.

= = = =

A06-608


Dianne Norvell,
Relator,

vs.

Triangle Services,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

LANSING, Judge
By writ of certiorari, Dianne Norvell appeals an
unemployment law judge's (ULJ) determination that she was discharged for
employment misconduct and is therefore disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ's
determination that Norvell was discharged for repeated failure to follow
her employer's reasonable procedure for providing notice of absence, we
affirm.

= = = =

A06-27

Kevin Gerard Olson,
Appellant,

vs.

Heather Jax,
Respondent.

RANDALL, Judge
On appeal in this custody dispute, appellant-father challenges the
district court's award of sole physical custody and child support to
respondent-mother. Appellant also challenges the district court's order
that appellant contribute to the child's post-secondary education,
reimburse respondent for past-daycare expenses, and the order that the
parties share the costs of extracurricular activities.
We affirm in part and reverse in part.

= = = =

A06-741

G.G., petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

N.K.,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant G.G. and respondent N.K. are the parents of two
children who are now 14 and 12 years old. Respondent has had physical
custody of the children since 1997, when she was awarded custody under
the terms of a paternity judgment. Appellant challenges the district
court's denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his motion to modify
custody of the children. Because the district court did not abuse its
discretion in determining that appellant failed to establish a prima
facie case so as to warrant an evidentiary hearing, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-629

Douglas Allen Crosby,
petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Dawn Rachelle Crosby,
n/k/a Dawn Rachelle Lawson,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
In this custody dispute, appellant Douglas Allen Crosby
claims that the district court abused its discretion by declining to
modify the custody arrangement for his two children, J.T.C., born August
22, 1993, and L.C.C., born May 18, 1995. The original custody
arrangement placed sole legal custody of the children with respondent
Dawn Rachelle Crosby, but the parties shared physical custody of the
children, with respondent caring for the children during the week and
appellant caring for the children on weekends. Appellant moved to
modify custody after the children were removed from respondent's home as
the result of a CHIPS petition. The home was found to be in a
disheveled state and without proper heating; soon afterwards, respondent
was discovered to be using methamphetamine. Appellant also claims that
the district court improperly denied him the right to impeach a witness
by refusing to admit evidence of a recorded phone conversation. Because
the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the
impeachment evidence, we affirm in part. Because the findings are
insufficient to allow us to conduct a meaningful review on the custody
issue, we reverse and remand on that issue.

= = = =

A06-481


In re the Marriage of:
Steven Nicholas Duffala,
petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Karen Marie Duffala,
Appellant.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Karen Marie Duffala challenges the district
court's order denying her motion to reopen the judgment dissolving the
parties' marriage, asserting that respondent Steven Nicholas Duffala
committed fraud by failing to disclose the value of his retirement
assets and that the district court's refusal to reopen the judgment was
therefore an abuse of discretion.
Because the district court's finding that respondent made
full disclosure of the parties' assets is supported by record evidence,
the court's conclusion that appellant did not sustain her burden of
proof is not an abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm.

= = = =

A06-411

Faith N. Nelson,
Relator,

vs.

SMSC Gaming Enterprises,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and
Economic Development,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Relator Faith Nelson challenges the decision of an
unemployment law judge (ULJ), who determined that relator was
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she committed
employment misconduct. Relator's employer, respondent SMSC Gaming
Enterprises, claimed that it discharged her for insubordination and for
using profanity in violation of the employer's rules. Because the ULJ
was entitled to find the employer's witnesses more credible than
relator, and because the ULJ could reasonably conclude that relator's
conduct demonstrated a serious disregard of her employer's interests, we
affirm.

= = = =

A06-265

Kim L. Michael,
Relator,

vs.

Marco Co., Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and
Economic Development,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Relator Kim Michael challenges a decision by an unemployment
law judge (ULJ), affirming the ULJ's earlier decision that relator was
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he quit his
job without good reason caused by his employer, respondent Marco Co.,
Inc. Because the evidence substantially supports the decision of the
ULJ that relator quit his job due to stress from personal reasons, not
due to any reasons attributable to the employer, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-196

Elizabeth Juran, et al.,
petitioners,
Appellants,

vs.

City of White Bear Lake,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellants Elizabeth and Robert Juran brought this suit
against respondent City of White Bear Lake for damages arising out of a
slip-and-fall accident on a city sidewalk. Because the district court
did not err in determining that the city was entitled to summary
judgment based on the "mere slipperiness" doctrine, we affirm solely on
that basis.

= = = =

A06-319

Timothy Quinn, Kimberly Quinn and
Arlene Dooner,
Appellants,

vs.

Russell Serbus,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court's determination that their
purchase agreement with respondent was rescinded and, thus, that they
were entitled to no damages for respondent's alleged breach. We affirm.


= = = =

A06-67

Adam Joseph Collins,
Respondent,

vs.

City of Hastings,
Appellant.

WILLIS, Judge
Appellant city challenges the denial of its motion for
summary judgment, arguing that the district court erred by not applying
recreational-use immunity to respondent's personal-injury claim. We
reverse and remand for the entry of judgment for appellant.

= = = =

A06-147

Leon Williams,
Relator,

vs.

Northland Transportation, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge
(ULJ) disqualifying him from unemployment benefits because he quit
without good reason caused by the employer or, if he was discharged, he
was discharged for misconduct. Relator argues that (a) he did not quit
and instead was discharged from employment for reasons other than
misconduct when he reasonably refused to drive a van that he believed to
be unsafe; and (b) if he quit, it was for good reason caused by the
employer. We hold that relator quit his job without good reason caused
by the employer, and we affirm.

= = = =

A06-280


Patricia A. Shambour,
Relator,

vs.

Property Upkeep Services,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

HALBROOKS, Judge
On appeal from reconsideration by an unemployment law judge
(ULJ) for denial of unemployment benefits, relator claims that her
off-work DWI was not misconduct. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-473

In re the Estate of Allen Lawrence LaDouceur,
a/k/a Allen L. LaDouceur, Decedent.

MINGE, Judge

Appellant, son of decedent, challenges the district court's
decision setting aside certain inter vivos transfers of property by the
decedent. Because we conclude there were disputes of material fact
whether decedent had capacity to transfer the property in question and
whether the decedent was unduly influenced to transfer the property, and
because after trial there was clear and convincing evidence that
decedent lacked capacity and was unduly influenced, we affirm.
= = = =

A06-160

Dawn Michelle Henry,
Appellant,

vs.

Indigenous People's Task Force,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
Appellant Dawn Michele Henry challenges the district court's
order granting respondent Indigenous People's Task Force summary
judgment dismissing appellant's employment-retaliation claim. Appellant
also challenges the district court's order denying as moot her motion to
amend her complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. Because a
genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether appellant made a
prima facie case for employment retaliation and whether respondent's
articulated reason for termination is pretext for retaliation, we
reverse and remand. Because the district court did not rule on the
merits of appellant's motion to amend the complaint, we remand for a
decision on that issue.

= = = =

A06-1120

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:
D. N. R., a/k/a D. N. J. and R. R. R., Parents.

WRIGHT, Judge
Appellant-mother argues that the district court's order
terminating her parental rights is defective because the record lacks
clear and convincing evidence that (1) at least one statutory ground for
termination exists, (2) the county made reasonable efforts to reunite
the family and rehabilitate appellant, and (3) termination is in the
children's best interests. Because the district court failed to
identify the statutory grounds for terminating parental rights and the
findings are insufficient to allow us to discern the statutory basis,
and because the findings regarding the county's reasonable efforts to
rehabilitate the parent and reunite the family do not address the nature
and extent of the county's efforts, we reverse and remand.

= = = =

A05-2468

Headwaters Rural Utility Association, Inc.,
Appellant,

vs.

City of Corcoran,
Respondent,

Metro West Inspection Services, Inc.,
Respondent,

Minnesota Onsite Treatment Contractors' Association, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

WRIGHT, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court's award of costs and
disbursements to respondents following the district court's entry of
summary judgment and dismissal of appellant's claims for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Appellant also moves to strike the
citation of an unpublished opinion. We affirm the award of costs and
disbursements and deny the motion to strike.

= = = =

A06-530

Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company,
Appellant,

vs.

Full Circle Physical Therapy, Inc., et al.,
Respondents,

Minnesota Institute of Neurology, P.A., et al.,
Respondents,

Twin Cities Open MRI, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

DIETZEN, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court order (1) denying
its claim that respondents provided physical therapy services in
violation of the corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine and the
Minnesota Professional Firms Act, and, therefore, its services are not
compensable under Minnesota's No-Fault Act; and (2) dismissing, sua
sponte, its claims of no-fault fraud, civil theft-by-swindle, and
conspiracy to commit fraud, arguing that the district court abused its
discretion. Because we conclude that the district court properly
applied the law in denying appellant's first claim, we affirm in part.
But because we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in
dismissing, sua sponte, appellant's other claims, we reverse in part and
remand.


= = = =

A06-526

Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Company,
as successor-in-interest to Economy Premiere Assurance Company,
Respondent,

vs.

Kenneth Koehnen, et al,
Appellants,

William Roger Wetterstrom, et al.,
Defendents.

DIETZEN, Judge

Appellants challenge the district court judgment in which it
granted respondent's cross motion for summary judgment, arguing that the
district court erred in concluding that respondent had no duty to defend
or indemnify its insured, who was involved in a car accident with
appellant, for no-fault benefits on the grounds that the "regular-use"
and the "business-use" exclusions did not apply. Because the district
court properly applied the law and properly interpreted the insurance
policy in question, we affirm.

= = = =

A05-2526

Robert J. Carye, et al.
Appellants,

vs.

Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation,
Respondent,

A&M Disaster Services, Inc.,
Respondent.

ROSS, Judge

This case concerns an insurance-coverage dispute arising out of
cleaning that occurred after Robert and Linda Carye's home sustained
water damage. On appeal from summary judgment, the Caryes argue that
genuine issues of material fact exist and that the district court erred
by concluding that their homeowners' insurance policy with Illinois
Farmers Insurance Company was void because of misrepresentations Robert
Carye made, that they could not prove A&M Disaster Services, Inc.,
caused them damages, and that A&M was not an agent of Illinois Farmers.
Because genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether Robert
Carye made the alleged misrepresentations to Illinois Farmers and
whether Illinois Farmers detrimentally relied on any statements that he
made, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor
of Illinois Farmers. But we affirm the entry of summary judgment in
favor of A&M because the record lacks evidence that A&M caused the
Caryes' alleged damages.
 

 
 
 

  What day were you injured?

  / /


  What caused your injuries?
Traffic/Bicycle Accident
Work-Related Injury
Wrongful Death
Dog Bite
Slip and Fall
Other:


  How have your injuries affected

  your life?

 


  What kinds of medical care
  professionals have you seen?

 


  What has your treatment cost?

 

  Is Insurance Involved?
My insurance may cover
        this.

Someone else's insurance
        may cover this.

I already filed a claim.
I rejected a settlement
        offer.

I accepted a settlement
        offer.

  Were there any witnesses?
Bystanders Witnessed This.
Police Responded and Filed
        a Police Report

Police Responded but Did
        Not File a Police Report


 
          By visiting this page or clicking the
  "submit" button above, you agree
  that you have read and accept this   "disclaimer".
 
Copyright © Michael E. Douglas, Attorney at Law, Saint Paul MN. All Rights Reserved.
Minnesota Lawyer representing Personal Injury, Car / Auto Accident, Workers Compensation, Medical Malpractice, Social Security Disability claims.
Dedicated to Injured Workers, Victims of Negligence, Car Accidents, Victims of Fraud, and those in need of legal assistance.