MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY  
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
 

Law Offices of Michael E. Douglas
P.O. Box 251551
Woodbury, Minnesota 55125-6551
   

 Saint Paul Lawyer
 
 mdouglas@injurylawtwincities.com

 

UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-1455


Michael A. O'Claire,
Relator,

vs.

Accra Care, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

LANSING, Judge
By writ of certiorari, Michael O'Claire appeals an unemployment
law judge's determination that O'Claire is disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits. Because O'Claire quit his job without good
reason caused by his employer and because the procedures used by the
unemployment law judge do not amount to violations of the department's
rules or O'Claire's right to a fair hearing, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-2075

In re the Marriage of:
Bret Raymond Collier, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Debra Jeanne Collier,
Respondent.

HUSPENI, Judge
In this marital dissolution action, appellant Bret Raymond
Collier challenges the district court's division of marital property and
award of attorney fees to respondent Carole Jean Nordahl, f/k/a Debra
Jean Collier. Because the record supports the district court's
decision, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion, but
to correct a mathematical error, we modify the district court's order
placing a lien against the homestead. Therefore, we affirm as modified.

= = = =

A06-2128

Helgeson Brothers Partnership,
Relator,

vs.

Douglas County Board of Commissioners,
Respondent.

MUEHLBERG, Judge
Relator appeals respondent's denial of its applications for
conditional use permits and plat applications. Because respondent did
not err in interpreting the zoning ordinance and its decision is
supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-2145

Jeremiah Bouley, as Trustee
for the Heirs of Delight L. Bouley, Deceased,
Appellant,

vs.

Jeffrey C. Windschitl, M.D., et al.,
Respondents.

HUDSON, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's summary judgment in
this medical-malpractice action, alleging that respondents hospital and
physician failed to evaluate decedent adequately and admit her under a
72-hour hold under Minn. Stat. ? 253B.05, subd. 2(a) (2002). Appellant
argues that (1) the district court improperly used a Frye-Mack analysis
to evaluate appellant's expert opinions; (2) if the court properly used
a Frye-Mack analysis, it abused its discretion by not ordering an
evidentiary hearing, and (3) there was a factual dispute as to causation
precluding summary judgment. Respondents assert that they are immune
from suit under the immunity provision of section 253B. We conclude
that because the district court did not use the Frye-Mack test and did
not err by granting summary judgment on the basis of lack of causation,
we need not reach the immunity issue, and we affirm.

= = = =

A06-2186

Cathy E. Bassett,
Relator,

vs.

LCS Lawn Service Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

MUEHLBERG, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment law judge
(ULJ) that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits
because she had been discharged for excessive absences. Relator
contends that (1) she was excused from work for every day that she was
absent and followed company policy in reporting her absences;
(2) domestic abuse provides a good reason for her absence; and (3) she
was improperly denied subpoenas to access phone records. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-2255

Steven Rodlund,
Appellant,

vs.

Laura Gibson,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's judgment for
respondent on appellant's claims of an equitable interest in real
property and unjust enrichment. We affirm.
= = = =

A06-2318

Thomas Paun,
Appellant,

vs.

Dolphin Pools, Inc., et al.,
Defendants,

Corrie D. Nelson, et al.,
Respondents

STONEBURNER, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's order (1) declaring that
his 0,434.57 judgment entered jointly and severally against
respondents and defendant corporations was satisfied when he acquired
respondents' interests in the corporations at a sheriff's sale for
,000; (2) releasing respondents from personal liability on all of the
corporate accounts; and (3) making appellant responsible for all
corporate debts. By notice of review, respondents challenge the
district court's denial of their motion for return of excess levy
amounts. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

= = = =

A06-2375


Mary Lou Newcomb,
Relator,

vs.

The Work Connection,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

LANSING, Judge
In this certiorari appeal from the denial of unemployment
benefits, Mary Lou Newcomb challenges the unemployment law judge's
determination that her reasons for quitting did not constitute a good
reason attributable to her employer. Because Newcomb's objections to
her employer's training decisions and assignment of job responsibilities
do not constitute a good reason for quitting, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-2382

Andres Arango,
Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.


HUSPENI, Judge
Relator Andres Arango, acting pro se, challenges the decision of
the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that he was not eligible for
unemployment benefits during a period when he was attending school
full-time. Because we agree that relator was not eligible for benefits
during that period, we affirm.
= = = =

A06-2405

Clifton Hicks,
Relator,

vs.

McDonalds Restaurants of Minnesota Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.


SHUMAKER, Judge
Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's (ULJ) decision
disqualifying him from receiving unemployment benefits, asserting that
the ULJ erred by finding that he quit without good reason caused by his
employer. Because the ULJ did not err by finding that relator quit his
job without good reason caused by the employer, we affirm.

= = = =

A07-99

Barnabas Araya Yohannes, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Aster Marikos Habtesilassie,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion
by denying appellant's motion to reopen the judgment dissolving his
marriage to respondent. Because we find no abuse of discretion, we
affirm.

= = = =

A07-0103

Helen Devereaux, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Kevin K. Stroup, et al.,
Respondents.

ROSS, Judge
Appellants Helen and Douglas Devereaux filed a lawsuit asserting
legal malpractice and other claims against respondent Kevin Stroup and
his law firm for allegedly giving erroneous gifting and tax advice in
1997 and performing negligent litigation services in the consequent
lawsuit in 2002. The district court dismissed the Devereauxs' claims on
both stated bases as barred by the statute of limitations after it
construed the two bases as arising from the same act-Stroup's allegedly
inappropriate advice in 1997. Because the two bases arise from two
distinct actions, the district court incorrectly applied the same
statute-of-limitations deadlines to both. We therefore affirm in part,
reverse in part, and remand.

= = = =

A07-291

Barnabus Araya Yohannes,
Appellant,

vs.

Aster Marikos Habtesilassie,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of his tort
action against respondent, arguing that the district court erred by
concluding that a mutual-release provision in the parties'
marital-dissolution judgment bars appellant's tort claims. Appellant
also claims that the district court abused its discretion by sanctioning
him. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-1280

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of:
S.M., R.T., and M.O., Parents.

WRIGHT, Judge
In this appeal challenging the district court's transfer of
physical and legal custody of her children, appellant argues that the
district court erred in its application of Minn. Stat. ? 260C.201 (2006)
by evaluating conditions other than those that led to the out-of-home
placement and by failing to consider appellant's condition at the time
of the hearing. Appellant also argues that the district court's
determination that the children could not be safely returned to her is
unsupported by the record. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-1294

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Erica Clarissa Thomas

RANDALL, Judge
On appeal from a civil commitment as mentally ill and dangerous
for an indeterminate period of time, appellant argues that (1) she did
not engage in an overt act causing or attempting to cause serious
physical harm to another as required for commitment as mentally ill and
dangerous under Minn. Stat. ? 253B.02, subd. 17 (2006); (2) the district
court's initial findings of fact and conclusions of law do not justify
indeterminate commitment as mentally ill and dangerous; and (3) there
was insufficient evidence presented at the review hearing to support the
district court's decision to commit appellant as mentally ill and
dangerous. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-1368

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Joseph William Schulz

MINGE, Judge
The district court ordered the indeterminate commitment of
appellant as both a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP) and a sexually
dangerous person (SDP). Appellant challenges only his commitment as a
SPP. Appellant argues that his history does not demonstrate that he is
"dangerous" or that he suffers from an "utter lack of control" as
required by the SPP commitment statute. He also asserts that because of
conflicting expert testimony, the district court erred in finding that
there was clear and compelling evidence establishing that he qualifies
as a SPP. Because we find that the district court did not err in
committing the appellant as a SPP, we affirm.

= = = =

A07-1479

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Ryan Lynn Wilbright

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant Ryan Lynn Wilbright was initially committed to the
Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) as a sexually dangerous person
(SDP) and a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP) on March 15, 2007. At
a 60-day review hearing, the district court issued findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and an order for appellant's indeterminate
commitment as a SDP and a SPP to treatment at MSOP. Appellant
challenges the sufficiency of these findings. 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 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.