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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-2208
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Paul M. Anderson.
Affirmed. Chief Judge Edward Toussaint, Jr.
Hennepin County District Court, Hon. H. Peter Albrecht and
Hon. Patricia L. Belois.
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Paul M. Anderson challenges his indeterminate commitment as mentally ill and dangerous. Because clear and convincing evidence in the record supports the district courts conclusion that appellant meets the standards for commitment as mentally ill and dangerous and because we see no error in appellants commitment to the Minnesota Security Hospital instead of being released to live with his sister, we affirm.
A07-958
Paul Morrissey, et al., Appellants, vs. Gurtek Custom Builders,
Respondent; Zimmerman Stucco and Plaster, Inc., Respondent.
Affirmed. Judge Thomas J. Kalitowski.
Ramsey County District Court, Hon. David C. Higgs.
KALITOWSKI, Judge
On appeal from the district courts dismissal of their lawsuit against respondents Gurtek Custom Builders (Gurtek) and Zimmerman Stucco and Plaster, Inc. (Zimmerman), appellants Paul and Kathryn Morrissey argue that the district court abused its discretion by excluding appellants causation expert witness and dismissing appellants case in its entirety based on the lack of admissible evidence of causation. By notice of review, respondent Zimmerman contends the district court abused its discretion by denying its spoliation claim and excluding the testimony of its expert. We affirm.
A07-795
Carla L. Brunner, Relator, vs. United Parcel Service Inc., Respondent;
Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Affirmed. Judge Thomas J. Kalitowski.
Department of Employment and Economic Development.
KALITOWSKI, Judge
Relator Carla L. Brunner challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) disqualifying her from receiving unemployment compensation benefits because she had been discharged for misconduct after violating the nonfraternization policy of her employer, respondent United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS). Relator argues that her behavior was not employment misconduct because (1) respondents policy was unreasonable as applied to her; (2) her conduct was a single incident that did not significantly affect respondent; and (3) her conduct was a good-faith error in judgment. We affirm.
A07-744
Noel B. Skelton, et al., Appellants, vs. G121, Inc., et al., Respondents.
Affirmed. Judge Randolph W. Peterson.
Hennepin County District Court, Hon. John Q. McShane.
PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from summary judgment in a dispute arising from a sale of real estate, appellant-buyers argue that the district court erred in concluding that (a) appellants right to cancel expired before it was exercised and (b) appellants waived their right to cancel the contract for deed. We affirm.
A07-173
In re the Maltreatment Finding of Kay Marie Beckman and
Maltreatment Finding and Order to Forfeit a Fine for New Horizon Child
Care Center, Inc.
Reversed and remanded. Judge Bruce D. Willis.
Minnesota Department of Human Services.
WILLIS, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges a determination by the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services that relator is culpable of two instances of maltreatment of a minor. We reverse and remand.
A07-424
Temphy Thompson, Relator, vs. ERP Fusion Consulting, Respondent;
Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Affirmed. Judge Gordon W. Shumaker.
Department of Employment and Economic Development.
SHUMAKER, Judge
In her certiorari appeal, relator challenges an unemployment law judges determination that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she was discharged for misconduct by falsifying expense reports and misleading her employer. Relator claims that she did not commit misconduct, arguing that she followed her employers instructions and normal business practices for the submission of expenses for reimbursement. We affirm.
A07-980
In re the Marriage of: Kimberly Anne Sperling, petitioner, Appellant, vs.
Mark Clayton Sperling, Respondent.
Reversed and remanded. Judge Terri J. Stoneburner.
Dakota County District Court, Hon. Thomas Poch.
STONEBURNER, Judge
Appellant mother challenges the district courts order reducing respondent fathers child-support obligation and the order denying her motion to amend that order. Because the district courts findings about fathers income and child-support obligation are inadequate, we reverse and remand.
A07-871
Jean L. Furney, Relator, vs. M & P Holdings LLC, Respondent;
Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Affirmed as modified. Judge Terri J. Stoneburner.
Department of Employment and Economic Development.
STONEBURNER, Judge On appeal by writ of certiorari from an unemployment law judges determination that she is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, relator argues that the conclusion that her employment was terminated for aggravated employment misconduct should be reversed because (1) relators due-process rights were violated when she was denied access to records; (2) the unemployment law judge failed to develop relevant facts; (3) the findings were not supported by the evidence and were arbitrary and capricious; and (4) denial of her request for reconsideration was an abuse of discretion. Because we conclude that the evidence supports a determination that relator was discharged for employment misconduct, rather than aggravated employment misconduct, we affirm as modified.
A07-1785
Jennifer Gwen Loveland, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Francis Joseph
Brosnan, Appellant.
Affirmed; motion granted. Judge David Minge.
Scott County District Court, Hon. Michael A. Young and
Hon. Mary J. Theisen.
MINGE, Judge
Appellant asserts (1) that the district court abused its discretion by holding an evidentiary hearing and terminating joint legal and physical custody; and (2) that the district court erred by denying his motions for contempt and for attorney fees and by granting a parenting consultant more powers than permitted by statute. We affirm.
A06-2149, A06-2150
Roderick Scroggins, Relator, vs. SDH Services West, LLC, Respondent
(A06-2149); United Parcel Services, Inc., Respondent (A06-2150);
Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Affirmed. Judge David Minge.
Department of Employment and Economic Development.
MINGE, Judge
Pro se relator challenges the denial of his request for unemployment benefits in these consolidated-certiorari appeals following his separation from two different jobs. Relator contends that (a) he was forced to quit one full-time position due to a harassing work environment; and (b) he was wrongfully terminated from another part-time position following an extended illness. Because we conclude that the unemployment law judge (ULJ) did not abuse her discretion in finding that relator quit his full-time position without good reason caused by the employer and was terminated from his part-time position for employment misconduct, we affirm.

A07-1395
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L. K., a/k/a B., a/k/a S.,
a/k/a L., and B. K., a/k/a S. K., Parents.
Affirmed. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright.
Ramsey County District Court, Hon. John T. Finley.
WRIGHT, Judge
In this appeal from the termination of her parental rights, appellant argues that the district court clearly erred by finding that (1) a child had suffered egregious harm while in her care; (2) she is palpably unfit to be a party to the parent-child relationship; and (3) she had substantially, continuously, or repeatedly refused or neglected to comply with the duties imposed on her by the parent-child relationship. We affirm.
A07-459
Vickie L. Hoffman, Relator, vs. Minnesota Mining Mfg. Co, Respondent;
Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Affirmed. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright.
Department of Employment and Economic Development.
WRIGHT, Judge
Relator challenges the determination of the unemployment law judge that she was discharged for employment misconduct and, therefore, is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm.
A06-2358
Marcelino Delgado, Appellant, vs. Neurosurgical Associates, Ltd., et al.,
Respondents; Allina Hospitals & Clinics, et al., Defendants.
Affirmed. Judge Kevin G. Ross.
Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Marilyn J. Kaman.
ROSS, Judge
This case involves a patients medical-malpractice allegations arising from spinal surgery in February 2001. The district court dismissed several claims, and a jury found that Christine Cox, M.D., was not negligent in the care she gave Marcelino Delgado. Delgado appeals, arguing that the case should be remanded to address the dismissed claims and urging that we remand for a new trial because of claimed improper evidentiary rulings, improper pretrial decisions, and bias on the part of the district court. Because the district court acted within its discretion and consistent with the law, and because Delgado does not convince us that the district court was biased, we affirm.
A07-1054
Karen Britten, Appellant, vs. The Franciscan Sisters d/b/a Sisters of the
Third Order Regular of Saint Francis of the Congregation of Our Lady of
Lourdes, et al., Respondents.
Affirmed. Judge Heidi S. Schellhas.
Olmsted County District Court, Hon. Joseph F. Chase.
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellant seeks review of a grant of summary judgment to respondents, arguing that the district court erred in dismissing her claims of vicarious liability, negligence, negligent supervision, and negligent retention as barred by the statute of limitations. Because we conclude that the district court did not err, we affirm.
A07-1268
Marcus P. Geissler, Relator, vs. Independent School District #2154,
Respondent; Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
Affirmed. Judge James C. Harten.*
Department of Employment and Economic Development.
HARTEN, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator Marcus P. Geissler challenges the decision of a Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) unemployment law judge (ULJ) affirming his earlier decision finding that relator was discharged for employment misconduct and is thereby disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm.
A07-677
Ramsey County, Appellant; Holly L. Wagner, Respondent, vs. Josef P.
Mehle, III, Respondent.
Reversed and remanded. Judge Bertrand Poritsky.**
Ramsey County District Court, Hon. Ronelle Anderson.
PORITSKY, Judge
Appellant Ramsey County challenges the district courts setting of respondent-father Josef Mehles various child-support obligations at amounts below the amounts called for by the child-support guidelines. The county argues that the obligations as set by the court lack both adequate support in the record and sufficient explanatory findings of fact. We reverse and remand.
A07-909
Tammi R. Rasmussen, et al., Appellants, vs. R & N Dvorak, Inc., et al.,
Respondents.
Affirmed. Judge Lawrence T. Collins**
Scott County District Court, Hon. Diane M. Hanson.
COLLINS, Judge
In this action for rescission of the purchase of a retail business, appellants-purchasers challenge the district court's summary judgment determination in favor of respondents-sellers, arguing that (1) respondents intentionally misrepresented that the business was protected by an exclusivity clause; (2) respondents intentionally misrepresented the business's finances; (3) alternatively, if not intentional misrepresentations, the statements were actionable-negligent misrepresentations; and (4) appellants did not waive their rights to challenge respondents' representations. We affirm.
A07-312
Steven H. Chase, Appellant; Richard Reed, Plaintiff, vs. City of Plymouth,
Respondent.
Affirmed. Judge Lawrence T. Collins.**
Hennepin County District Court, Hon. John L. Holahan.
COLLINS, Judge
Appellant Steven H. Chase challenges the district court order (1) reversing his conciliation court award of damages and (2) determining that he did not have any property right in lakeshore property located in respondent City of Plymouth. Because the district court did not err in concluding that Chase did not have a requisite property right to maintain a dock on Medicine Lake, and because Chases additional claims lack merit, 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.