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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A06-1650

Ahmed Demmaj,
Appellant,

vs.

Grace M. Elasky,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Appellant contract-for-deed vendee contends that the district
court erred in ordering the release to respondent vendor of sums
deposited in connection with appellant's declaratory-judgment action
challenging a cancellation of the contract. Because the court had the
authority to require a bond deposit and to determine the scope of its
coverage, the court did not err in ordering the release of the deposit
to cover items other than contract-for-deed arrearages. Accordingly, we
affirm.

= = = =

A06-1661

In the Matter of the Findings of
Abuse by D.F.C.,
Appellant,

vs.

Minnesota Commissioner of Health,
Respondent.

WILLIS, Judge
Appellant challenges respondent's determination that (1) the
department of health proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
appellant abused a vulnerable adult; and (2) appellant's
disqualification from positions involving direct contact with persons
receiving services from certain programs was proper. Appellant argues
that respondent's determinations were not supported by substantial
evidence and that respondent erred by failing to address the
applicability of the therapeutic-conduct exception to the definition of
abuse. Because we find that respondent's determinations were not
supported by substantial evidence, we reverse.

= = = =

A06-1968

Susan J. Davis,
Respondent,

vs.

St. Ann's Home,
Appellant,

vs.

Kent Gaidis, d/b/a Kent's Carpet,
Third-Party Defendant.

DIETZEN, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court order denying its motion
for posttrial relief and resulting judgment awarding respondent damages
for injuries she sustained as a result of a slip and fall accident,
arguing that it did not owe respondent any duty regarding open and
obvious conditions at appellant's assisted-living facility, that
respondent's claims are barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk,
and that the district court erred in its application of the collateral
source rule. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-2274

Richard L. Anderson,
Relator,

vs.

Cabela's Retails, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment
and Economic Development,
Respondent.

HUDSON, Judge
Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's decision that he
was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was
discharged for misconduct for breach of loyalty after attempting to
purchase guns from his employer through a third person for substantially
less than their actual value. Because the unemployment law judge did
not err by deciding that relator was discharged for unemployment
misconduct, we affirm.

= = = =

A06-2354

In the Matter of the Application of
Northern States Power Company,
d/b/a Xcel Energy
for Authority to Increase Rates
for Electric Service in Minnesota.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Relator Myer Shark contends that the Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission's decision to approve an increase in electric utility rates
is arbitrary and capricious because it includes a tax cost that the
utility may never incur and establishes an effective date that violates
conditions imposed under an earlier order of the commission. We affirm.

= = = =

A06-2422

Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.,
Plaintiff,

vs.

American Muslim Community Center,
Appellant,

Mohamed R. El-Gamal,
Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff,

vs.

Rishma Adam, et al.,
Third Party Defendants,

Kallas & Associates, Ltd.,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Appellant contends that the district court erred in applying the
law of apparent authority by ordering appellant to pay respondent law
firm for legal services. Because we conclude that appellant's former
president and director lacked apparent authority at the time that he
retained respondent, purportedly on behalf of appellant, we reverse.

= = = =

A07-61

County of Anoka, ex rel Alena M. Hubacher,
Appellant,

vs.

Djan M. Davis,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant County of Anoka, appearing on behalf of Alena M.
Hubacher, challenges the district court's denial of its motion to hold
respondent, Djan M. Davis, in contempt for failure to pay child support.
Because the record provides support for the decision, we conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm.

= = = =

A07-0074

Samantha Jane Gemberling,
Respondent,

vs.

Karl Hampton,
Appellant.


WRIGHT, Judge
Appellant challenges the child support magistrate's denial of
his motion for modification of child support. And respondent moves to
strike portions of appellant's reply brief. We affirm the denial of the
modification motion and deny respondent's motion to strike.

= = = =

A07-0130

Kim M. Foss,
Relator,

vs.

St. Luke's Hospital Association of Duluth,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.


CRIPPEN, Judge
Relator challenges the unemployment judge's decision that she
quit her employment without good reason caused by the employer and was
therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because
the record supports the finding of a quit and there was no error of law,
we affirm.

= = = =

A07-0180

David Peterson,
Respondent,

vs.

Industrial Door Company, Inc.,
d/b/a Industrial Spring Company,
Appellant.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Respondent David Peterson was injured on the job and brought a
product liability claim against his employer, appellant Industrial Door
Company. The district court granted appellant partial summary judgment
on respondent's claims against it in its capacity as employer, but
denied summary judgment on respondent's product liability claims
asserted against appellant in its capacity as manufacturer/designer.
Appellant challenges this decision, arguing that the district court
erred in determining that it continued to have subject matter
jurisdiction over respondent's claims against appellant. We affirm.

= = = =

A07-0209


In the Matter of the
Claim for Benefits by Peter L. Dahl.

LANSING, Judge
While employed as a deputy sheriff in Rice County, Peter Dahl
sustained an injury by falling backward into a chair during a discussion
with the sheriff. The Public Safety Officers Benefit Eligibility Panel
determined that Dahl's occupational duties and professional
responsibilities put him at risk for the type of injury he sustained and
therefore approved his claim for continued health-insurance benefits
from the county. Because the panel's decision was supported by
substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious, we affirm.

= = = =

A07-0260


In re the Marriage of:
Michael D. Werner,
petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.
Judy R. Werner,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Michael D. Werner challenges the district court's
confirmation of an arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator showed
evident partiality. Because appellant failed to establish facts that
would create a reasonable impression of partiality, the district court
did not err in confirming the arbitration award. We therefore affirm
the district court's order.

= = = =

A07-286

Leyla Tarlan,
Respondent,

vs.

Alan Sorensen,
f/k/a Mourits Alan Sorensen,
Appellant.

ROSS, Judge
Appellant Alan Sorensen and respondent Leyla Tarlan have three
children together. Sorensen, who had primary physical custody and sole
legal custody of the three children, began regularly weighing their
nine-year-old daughter and refused to allow Tarlan to pay for the older
son's necessary orthodontic treatment. The district court granted
Tarlan's motion for sole legal and physical custody and ordered Sorensen
to undergo a psychological assessment.
Sorensen argues that the district court's factual findings of
endangerment are unsupported by the record. He also argues that the
district court abused its discretion by ordering him to undergo a
psychological assessment without notice and a hearing. Because the
district court's factual findings are supported by the record, we affirm
its order modifying custody. But the district court's order that
Sorensen comply with recommendations made after a future psychological
assessment was improperly issued because Sorensen was given no
opportunity to be heard. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part,
and remand.

= = = =

A07-1459


Thor Kenneth Miner,
Appellant,

vs.

Cal R. Ludeman,
Commissioner of Human Services,
Respondent.

KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Thor Kenneth Miner was committed indeterminately as
mentally ill and dangerous (MI&D) but has been living in the community
independently since 2001, pursuant to a provisional discharge. He
petitioned for full discharge from his commitment and after the judicial
appeal panel affirmed the decision by the Commissioner of Human Services
to deny his petition, he brought this appeal. Because the evidence
supports the determination that appellant has satisfied the criteria for
full discharge, we reverse.

= = = =

A07-1459


Thor Kenneth Miner,
Appellant,

vs.

Cal R. Ludeman,
Commissioner of Human Services,
Respondent.


KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Thor Kenneth Miner was committed indeterminately as
mentally ill and dangerous (MI&D) but has been living in the community
independently since 2001, pursuant to a provisional discharge. He
petitioned for full discharge from his commitment and after the judicial
appeal panel affirmed the decision by the Commissioner of Human Services
to deny his petition, he brought this appeal. Because the evidence
supports the determination that appellant has satisfied the criteria for
full discharge, we reverse.

= = = =

A07-1564

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:

Bradley Wayne Foster.


DIETZEN, Judge
Appellant challenges his commitment as a sexually-dangerous
person and a sexual-psychopathic personality, arguing that the findings
are clearly erroneous and that Minn. Stat. ? 253B.18, subd. 2 (2006),
violates his constitutional right to due process of law. 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.