| THE SAINT PAUL PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-1145Linda Timmer, et al., Respondents, Independent School District 482, intervenor, Appellant, vs.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 Because the unemployment-law judge's decision relies on law that is no longer in effect and was not in effect at the time of the ineligibility decision, we remand for further proceedings.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 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
