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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-1145

Linda Timmer, et al.,
Respondents,

Independent School District 482, intervenor,
Appellant,

vs.

Shamineau Adventures,
Defendant.

LANSING, Judge
This appeal involves a dispute between Independent School
District 482 and its employee, Linda Timmer, over the effect of a
pretrial agreement on the distribution of proceeds from litigation
establishing third-party liability for Timmer's work-related injuries.
Because the agreement provides for allocation according to the statutory
workers' compensation formula for subrogation rights, we reverse the
district court's order that apportions recoverable and nonrecoverable
damages under Henning v. Wineman, 306 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 1981). But
because Jere Timmer's loss-of-consortium claim is not governed by the
agreement or the statute, we affirm the district court's exclusion of
the loss-of-consortium damages from the statutory distribution.

= = = =

A06-923


Noel B. Gilles,
Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

LANSING, Judge
On certiorari to our court, Noel Gilles appeals an
unemployment-law judge's decision that he is ineligible to receive
unemployment benefits because he failed to maintain an active benefit
account. Because the unemployment-law judge's decision relies on law
that is no longer in effect and was not in effect at the time of the
ineligibility decision, we remand for further proceedings.

= = = =

A06-999

Dennis Winkelman, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

County of Stearns,
Respondent

RANDALL, Judge
On appeal from a summary judgment for respondent-county in a
declaratory judgment action in which appellants asked the district court
to rule certain provisions of the county's amended zoning ordinance
unconstitutionally vague and subjective, and lacking a rational basis,
appellants challenge the district court's refusal to do so.
We conclude a reading of the ordinance in its entirety provides
an adequate understanding of its intention. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-735

In the Matter of:
Wayne D. Bohn, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Charity S. Maggert, n/k/a/ Charity S. Vad,
Respondent.

RANDALL, Judge
On appeal in this child-support-modification dispute, pro se
appellant-father argues that the district court failed to make adequate
findings to support its deviation from the child-support guidelines. We
affirm.

= = = =

A06-913

William J. Pluta,
Relator,

vs.

SMSC Gaming Enterprises,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and
Economic Development,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Relator William J. Pluta challenges a decision by an
unemployment law judge (ULJ) that affirms on reconsideration an earlier
decision that relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct after using
profanity and throwing a remote control in the direction of two
coworkers. Relator asserts that he was "unjustly denied" benefits
because his employer, respondent SMSC Gaming Enterprise, prohibited him
from accessing records or interviewing witnesses to the incident that
led to his firing. He further disagrees with the ULJ's characterization
of his actions and insists that he did not throw the remote control, but
merely "tossed" it, and that he used profanity only once, not numerous
times.
Because relator acknowledges that he used profanity and
tossed the remote control in the direction of two coworkers, and because
this conduct displays clearly a serious violation of the standards of
behavior that an employer has a right to reasonably expect, we affirm
the ULJ's determination that relator committed employment misconduct and
was therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.

= = = =

A06-839

Dale W. Leehy,
Relator,

vs.

Verndale Truss, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and
Economic Development.
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Relator Dale Leehy challenges a decision by an unemployment
law judge (ULJ) that affirms on reconsideration an earlier decision
disqualifying relator from receiving unemployment benefits. In that
earlier decision, the ULJ determined that relator was disqualified
because he quit his employment without a good reason caused by his
employer, respondent Verndale Truss, Inc. In this certiorari appeal,
relator argues that he had good reason to quit when his employer demoted
him, changed his schedule, and reduced his pay by 17 percent.
Because the reasons given by relator for quitting would not
have compelled an average, reasonable worker to quit and become
unemployed, we affirm the decision of the ULJ that relator is
disqualified from receiving benefits because he quit his employment
without good reason caused by his employer.

= = = =

A06-737
A06-782
A06-800

State of Minnesota, et al.,
plaintiffs and third party defendants,
Respondents,

vs.

Rice Creek Watershed District,
Respondent,

City of Hugo,
intervenor defendant and third party plaintiff,
Respondent,

Margaret Waller, et al.,
trustees/applicants for intervention,
Appellants (A06-737),

George Schtowchan, et al.,
applicants for intervention,
Appellants (A06-800),

Francis Miron, et al.,
applicants for intervention,
Appellants (A06-782),

and

State of Minnesota,
ex rel. Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy,
Respondent,


Minnesota Conservation Federation, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Rice Creek Watershed District, et al.,
Respondents,

Glenn Rehbein Excavating, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellants Margaret and John Waller, Francis and Mary Ann
Miron, and George and Kathleen Schtowchan challenge the district court's
order denying their motion to intervene. Because the underlying action
has been dismissed by the parties to the suit, we dismiss this appeal as
moot.

= = = =

A06-1876

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: D.A.B. and W.M.W., Parents

PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from an order terminating her parental
rights, appellant mother argues that the record lacks clear and
convincing evidence that (1) any of the alleged statutory bases for
termination exists and (2) termination of her parental rights is in the
best interests of the child. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-886

Jerilynn Brunell, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Barb Kyle, et al.,
Respondents,

Joel Erickson,
Respondent.

PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from summary judgment, appellants argue that
the district court erred in concluding that respondents did not owe
appellants a duty of care. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-410


Stephen Kariniemi,
Relator,

vs.

R & H Painting, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

DIETZEN, Judge

By writ of certiorari, relator challenges the decision of
the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator was ineligible for
unemployment benefits and had been overpaid through fraud, arguing that
his attempts to secure painting jobs for his business did not constitute
"working" and that his conduct did not constitute fraud. Because the
ULJ's determination that relator's attempts to secure painting jobs
constitute "work" and, therefore, that he was ineligible for
unemployment benefits is supported by substantial evidence in the record
as a whole, we affirm in part. But we reverse and remand the ULJ's
determination that relator was overpaid through fraud because the
reasons for finding that relator's testimony was not credible are not
identified, as required by Minn. Stat. ? 268.105, subd. 1(c).

= = = =

A06-1024

Pauline Thomas, individually and as
guardian ad litem for the minor child,
Antonequa Lee, Plaintiff,

vs.

City of Minneapolis, et al.,
Respondents,

Shannon McKenzie in her individual capacity
and as a member of the unincorporated association
Underdog Rescue,
Respondent,

Carolyn Keller,
Appellant.


WORKE, Judge
Appellant, the purchaser of a lost dog who was later ordered to
return it to its original owner, argues that the district court erred by
(1) sanctioning her under Minn. Stat. ? 549.211 (2006) because the
behavior the district court described as "sanctionable" predated her
involvement in the litigation and because there was no compliance with
the due-process requirements of the statute; (2) failing to make her
damages award for the cost and care of the dog joint and several among
respondents; and (3) failing to award her costs and disbursements as a
prevailing party. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

= = = =

A06-592

Joseph Moranga Ouya,
Relator,

vs.

Minnesota Department of Human Services,
Respondent.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Relator Joseph Ouya was disqualified from a position
involving direct contact with vulnerable persons as a result of his
conviction of criminal vehicular injury. Because the decision denying
reconsideration of the disqualification is supported by the evidence and
is not otherwise defective, we affirm.

= = ==

A06-1095

Erik Tweeton,
Appellant,

vs.

Cheri L. Frandrup, et al.,
Respondents.

COLLINS, Judge
Appellant Erik Tweeton challenges the summary judgment
entered in favor of respondents dismissing Tweeton's 42 U.S.C. ? 1983
and defamation claims, arguing that procedural irregularities and
genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. But because
(1) Tweeton's various procedural challenges are without merit, (2)
Tweeton fails to establish the existence of any genuine issue of
material fact, and (3) respondents are entitled to judgment as a matter
of law, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-965

Sherri Ann Lindstrom, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Thomas Gene Lindstrom,
Appellant.

STONEBURNER, Judge

In this dissolution action, appellant challenges the
district court's valuation and division of property, failure to equalize
the disparity in social-security benefits between the parties in the
division of property or award of maintenance based on the disparity, and
calculation of appellant's net monthly income. Because the district
court did not clearly err in valuing the property or in finding
appellant's net monthly income and did not abuse its discretion in the
division of property or the denial of appellant's request for
maintenance, we affirm
 

 
 
 

  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.