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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-1135



Catherine Sanford,

Appellant,



vs.



Duane F. Nelson, D. P.M., et al.,

Respondents.



KALITOWSKI , Judge

Appellant Catherine Sanford challenges the district court’s denial of her motion for a new trial, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by excluding certain expert witness testimony, declining to allow appellant to call a rebuttal witness, allowing expert witness testimony by a psychiatrist, and excluding certain evidence. We affirm.



A06-1348





Linda Welchlin,

Appellant,



vs.



Rose Lake Golf Club, Inc.,

Respondent.



TOUSSAINT , Chief Judge

Linda Welchlin appeals from a judgment dismissing her claim of marital-status discrimination. Following a court trial with an advisory jury, the district court concluded that appellant’s marital status was not a direct or indirect motivating factor in respondent Rose Lake Golf Club, Inc.’s decision to discharge her; respondent had met its burden of producing evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for discharging appellant; and appellant had not shown respondent’s reasons were a pretext for a discriminatory discharge. Because the district court did not err in its application of the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting analysis, we affirm.

A06-1584



Janet Peoples,
Appellant,

vs.

Buffets, Inc. d/b/a Old Country Buffet,
Respondent.



PETERSON , Judge

In this appeal from summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case, appellant argues that (1) factual issues precluded summary judgment; and (2) promissory estoppel applies to her claim for payment of medical bills. We affirm.

A06-1587



In re the Estate of

Cameron R. E. Lyseng, Deceased.



RANDALL , Judge

Personal representatives Kathleen Gates and Carol L. Smith filed this pro se appeal from a district court order that permitted respondent Minnesota Department of Human Services to recover from the estate of a deceased client, Cameron R. E. Lyseng, the total cost of care given to the client at a regional treatment center. Appellants challenge the district court’s allowance of Big Stone County’s claim, made through the Department of Human Services, arguing that the district court misapplied Minn. Stat. § 246.53, subd. 1 (2006). We affirm.
A06-1684



Sherrie Le,
Relator,

vs.

City of Maplewood, Minnesota,
Respondent.

WRIGHT, Judge

In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges respondent’s decision to terminate her employment, arguing that respondent’s reasons for its termination decision are fraudulent, arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, and unsupported by substantial evidence. Relator also argues that she was denied the right to procedural due process. We affirm the termination decision and deny respondent’s motion to amend the certified record.

A06-1819





Kevin Edwards,

Relator,



vs.



MOAC Mall Holdings, LLC,

Respondent,



Department of Employment and Economic Development,

Respondent.



TOUSSAINT , Chief Judge

Relator Kevin Edwards challenges a decision by an unemployment law judge (ULJ), who determined that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he quit his job without good reason caused by his employer, respondent MOAC Mall Holdings, LLC. Relator quit his employment as a facility custodian in order to care for his two children, who were living on the streets of Chicago with their crack-cocaine addicted mother.

Because the ULJ failed to consider whether relator could meet the statutory exception provided to an employee whose decision to quit is “necessitated” by “domestic abuse of the [employee] or the [employee’s] minor child,” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(8) (Supp. 2005), we reverse and remand.
A06-1829



In re the Marriage of:
Steven John Stoltman, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Marilyn Jane Stoltman,
Respondent.

STONEBURNER, Judge



In this appeal from post-dissolution orders, appellant challenges the district court’s award of attorney fees to respondent, argues that the district court erred in calculating his disposable income, and erred by ordering him to pay more for child support and maintenance from his long-term disability benefits than is permitted by state and federal law. Appellant also argues that the order finding him in contempt of court for failing to pay attorney fees should be vacated. Respondent moves to strike portions of appellant’s brief and to dismiss the appeal. We deny respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal but grant in part the motion to strike. We reverse the attorney fee awards and vacate the finding of contempt. We affirm the district court’s calculation of husband’s net income from private long-term disability because husband failed to demonstrate that the calculation is clearly erroneous.
A06-1894



Elma Peters, et al.,

Respondents,



vs.



Silver Creek Traders, Inc.,

Appellant.



HUDSON, Judge

Appellant Silver Creek Traders, Inc. (Silver Creek), challenges the district court’s denial of appellant’s pretrial motion for summary judgment and posttrial motions for JMOL, new trial, and remittitur. Appellant argues that the landing where respondent was injured was open and obvious; that there was not substantial evidence at trial to support the jury’s finding of appellant’s negligence; that the district court erred by excluding evidence as hearsay; and that the damages awarded shocked the conscience. Because the district court did not err by denying summary judgment, JMOL, new trial, or remittitur, we affirm.

A 06-1981



American Federal Bank,

f/k/a American Federal Savings and Loan Association,

Appellant,



vs.



F & W Properties,

Respondent.



DIETZEN , Judge



Appellant challenges the district court order and resulting judgment interpreting the sublease agreement of the parties, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred by (1) issuing an order inconsistent with the previous order of the court, (2) concluding that the sublease provision did not provide an option to extend the lease, and (3) concluding that consent was reasonably withheld. We affirm.

A 06-2105



Crow Wing County Social Services,

Plaintiff,



Nicole I. Buranen,

Appellant,



vs.



Randy M. Buranen,

Respondent.



DIETZEN , Judge



Appellant challenges the child support magistrate’s order determining child support, arguing that respondent’s income was greater than ,200 per year. We reverse and remand.
A07-551



In the Matter of the

Civil Commitment of:

Donald James Whiteford.



HUDSON, Judge

On appeal from a civil commitment as mentally ill and dangerous, appellant Donald J. Whiteford challenges the district court’s conclusion that he is mentally ill and dangerous and in need of indeterminate commitment. Because we conclude that sufficient evidence established that appellant met the statutory criteria for commitment as mentally ill and dangerous, 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.