| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSLyle Berman,Appellant, vs. Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand, LLP, Respondent.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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
