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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-0505

Sondra M. Pederson, individually and as Trustee for the Heirs
and Next of Kin of Roger M. Pederson, deceased,
Appellant,

vs.

Quality Construction Connection, Inc., et al.,
Respondents.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Roger M. Pederson and Richard A. Anderson both died as the result of an accident with a vehicle owned by respondent Quality Construction Connection, Inc. Appellant Sondra M. Pederson, individually and as trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Roger M. Pederson, challenges the adverse grant of summary judgment on her wrongful-death claim against Quality Construction and respondent Jean Anderson, special administrator of the estate of Richard A. Anderson. Appellant argues that the district court erred by applying the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, by not finding a comparative-fault issue for the jury, and by finding that appellant failed to make a prima facie case of negligence. Respondents argue that the district court erred in concluding that appellant brought suit within the applicable statute of limitations. Because the facts are sparse and disputed, we cannot conclude that the statute of limitations bars appellant's claim. The lack of information in the record also leads us to conclude, as the district court did, that appellant failed to make a prima facie case of negligence. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of appellant's wrongful death claim without reaching appellant's assumption-of-the-risk argument.


A07-0841


Rebecca A. Busho,
Relator,

vs.

Crestridge Holdings Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.


LANSING, Judge
Rebecca Busho appeals, by writ of certiorari, an unemployment law judge's determination disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the determination that Busho quit her employment and no exceptions to disqualification apply, we affirm.

A07-0969


In re: Guardianship of Robert E. Stransky, Ward

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellants-interested persons Bruce and Mary Bombard, Elizabeth Erhart, Keith Lindstrom, Dave Nelsen, Kevin Carlson, Jeanette Tuzinski, Pete and Kim Tuzinski, John and Betty Weis, and Arlee and Ellen Carlson challenge the district court's orders granting respondent-guardian Sheila Stransky's petition for removal of her restrictions as guardian of respondent-ward Robert E. Stransky and awarding the guardian costs and fees. Because there were no irregularities in the proceedings and because the district court did not abuse its discretion and its findings were not clearly erroneous, we affirm the district court's orders lifting the guardian's restrictions and awarding her costs and disbursements. Because the district court abused its discretion by determining that appellants acted in bad faith, we reverse the district court's order granting the guardian attorney fees.
A07-1032

Elias A. Murdock,
Relator,

vs.

YWCA - St. Paul,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

SCHELLHAS, Judge
By writ of certiorari, pro se relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator was discharged for employment misconduct and is, therefore, disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because the ULJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is not affected by an error of law, we affirm.


A07-1101, A07-1102

Robert W. Fluegge,
Relator,

vs.

Rademacher Companies, Inc.,
Respondent

Department of Employment
and Economic Development
Respondent.

CRIPPEN, Judge
Relator Robert Fluegge challenges an unemployment law judge's (ULJ) determination that he was disqualified from prior benefits, which must be repaid, because he had been discharged for employment misconduct after leaving his shift early. Because the ULJ did not err in concluding that relator's employer has the right to reasonably expect that its employees will work their scheduled shifts, we affirm.


A07-1266

Megan C. Hatanpaa,
Relator,

vs.

Park Supply, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WORKE, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she quit her employment without good reason caused by her employer, arguing that she had good reason to quit because she endured repeated sexual harassment from employees and customers, her managers knew about and participated in the harassment, and her employer failed to take any corrective action. We affirm.


A07-1295

In re the Marriage of:
Mary Melissa Martin, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Kurt Wayne Martin,
Appellant.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion to modify his child-support and health-care obligations. Because the record supports the district court's order, we affirm.

A07-1304

In re the Matter of:
Steven R. Schaetzke, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Linda Hardin,
Appellant.

MUEHLBERG, Judge
Appellant and respondent lived together for a substantial period of time as cohabitants. During their cohabitation, respondent executed a deed in favor of appellant creating joint-tenancy ownership of the parties' homestead. The parties eventually married, but this marriage was later dissolved. Appellant now challenges the district court's resolution of the matters relating to the parties' cohabitation and marriage, claiming it erred in: (1) determining that respondent's execution of the deed did not gift an interest to her in the parties' homestead; (2) characterizing certain property shared during the parties' marriage as marital in nature; and (3) in refusing to invade respondent's nonmarital estate. We conclude the district court properly characterized the disputed property as marital property and that it acted within its discretion in refusing to invade respondent's nonmarital estate and affirm in part. But we conclude that the district court erred in deciding that the execution of the deed did not gift appellant an interest in the parties' homestead and reverse in part and remand.


A07-1385

Jeffrey James Kearns,
Relator,

vs.

Cardiac Pacemakers Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WORKE, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he quit without good reason caused by the employer, arguing that he had good reason because (1) his manager telephoned him daily while he was on vacation and accused him of being on an unapproved vacation; and (2) he was subject to racial discrimination. We affirm.

A07-1713

In re: Estate of
Doris L. Prestegaard, Deceased


KLAPHAKE, Judge
Doris L. Prestegaard died on March 1, 2003, survived by her three children, respondents Stefni Westphal and Kristi Bolstad, and appellant Peter Prestegaard, who were her residuary beneficiaries. All three were appointed as personal representatives of the estate, as well as respondent U.S. Bank N.A., as corporate personal representative. Appellant contests the district court's June 29, 2007 order for complete settlement and distribution decree, arguing that the court misconstrued the provisions of the will.
Because the plain language of the will supports the district court's construction, we affirm.

A07-1826

Donise Thostenson,
Relator,

vs.

Commissioner of Human Services,
Respondent.

WORKE, Judge
On appeal from the revocation of her family child-care license, relator argues that the commissioner abused his discretion by affirming the disqualification and not setting aside the revocation because (1) substantial evidence does not support the finding of recurring maltreatment; (2) the commissioner erred by failing to consider a risk-of-harm analysis performed at the time of the hearing; and (3) substantial evidence does not support revocation. Because the commissioner's decision runs counter to the evidence, we reverse.

A08-0177


Joe Henry Bandy-Bey, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Joan Fabian, Commissioner of Corrections,
Respondent.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
This expedited appeal is from an order denying appellant Joe Henry Bandy-Bey's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. That petition challenged a decision by respondent Joan Fabian, Commissioner of Corrections, to impose sanctions for appellant's failure to complete mandated treatment. Because appellant no longer had a Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to answer questions about his offense in the treatment program and because his other 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.