attorney Michael E. Douglas Attorney at Law
  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




Richard Colliers, Relator, vs. Dakota County Community Development
Agency, Respondent.
Affirmed. Judge Thomas J. Kalitowski.
Dakota County Community Development Agency.

Relator Richard Colliers appeals from the termination of his Section 8
housing benefits, arguing that the record does not support the
termination of benefits, the hearing officer's decision was arbitrary
and capricious, and he was not given a reasonable accommodation. We
= = = =

C. O., petitioner, Appellant, vs. John Doe, et al.,
Affirmed. Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks.
Dissenting, Judge R. A. (Jim) Randall.
Washington County District Court, Hon. David Doyscher.

Appellant C.O. challenges the district court's order to
vacate the contact agreement between him and the adoptive parents of his
biological daughter. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-2222, A07-944
Friends of the Riverfront, et al., Relators, vs. DeLaSalle
High School,
Respondent; City of Minneapolis, Respondent.
Affirmed. Judge Terri J. Stoneburner.
Minneapolis City Council.

In these consolidated appeals, relators challenge by writ of certiorari
respondent city's grant of a Certificate of Appropriateness and amended
Certificate of Appropriateness to respondent high school for the
construction of an athletic facility adjacent to the school on Nicollet
Island. Because respondent city's action was not arbitrary or
capricious, we affirm.

= = = =

In re the Marriage of: Kari Donna Erickson n/k/a Kari Donna
petitioner, Appellant, vs. Kraig Steven Erickson,
Respondent, and Itasca
County Health and Human Services, Intervenor.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Judge
Christopher J.
Itasca County District Court, Hon. Jon A. Maturi.

Appellant challenges the district court order and resulting judgment
granting respondent's motion to, among other things, reduce child
support, spousal maintenance, and child-support arrearages, arguing that
there was no substantial change in circumstances rendering the original
award unfair and unreasonable. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and

= = = =

Farmers Home Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, vs. Mark
et al., Defendants; Steven Heckmann, by his father and
natural guardian,
Brian Heckmann, Appellant.
Affirmed. Judge Renee L. Worke.
Dakota County District Court, Hon. Martha M. Simonett.

WORKE, Judge
On appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of
respondent insurer, which denied coverage for damages assessed against
an additional insured based on policy exclusions for intentional acts
and sexual molestation, appellant argues that respondent was
collaterally estopped from relitigating issues resolved in the
underlying tort action and that the tortfeasor's mental deficiency
rendered him incapable of forming an intent to injure. We affirm.

Ica Cristescu, Appellant, vs. Dr. Michael McGowan,
Affirmed. Judge James C. Harten.*
Hennepin County District Court, Hon. John L. Holahan.

Appellant Ica Cristescu challenges the dismissal with
prejudice of her dental malpractice claim. Because we see no abuse of
discretion in the dismissal, we affirm.
= = = =

Joseph McLeod, Appellant, vs. Nathan Hodgeman, Respondent.
Affirmed. Judge Natalie E. Hudson.
Hennepin County District Court, Hon. John Q. McShane.

On appeal from summary judgment, appellant argues that the district
court erred in granting summary judgment because the district court did
not consider whether respondent harbored the offending dog so as to be
secondarily liable as a dog owner under Minn. Stat. ? 347.22 (2006), and
because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
respondent harbored the dog. Because (1) the district court analyzed
whether respondent harbored the offending dog; and (2) there is no
genuine issue of material fact as to whether respondent harbored the
offending dog, who bit appellant in an area controlled by respondent's
tenant, we affirm.


  What day were you injured?

  / /

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

  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

Someone else's insurance
        may cover this.

I already filed a claim.
I rejected a settlement

I accepted a settlement

  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 Law Firm 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.