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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-1051
Dana Jo Field,
Appellant,
vs.
Bastian Vernon Van Hofwegen, et al.,
Respondents.
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Dana Jo Field challenges the district court's denial of her motion for a new trial, arguing that she is entitled to a new trial as a sanction for the alleged discovery misconduct of counsel for respondents Bastian Vernon Van Hofwegen and Metropolitan Council. Because appellant waived her new-trial argument by failing to object to the alleged misconduct at trial, we affirm.


A07-1456
Burlington Coat Factory of Minnesota, LLC, successor to
Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Minneapolis, Inc.,
Respondent,
vs.
Jerry Chapman, d/b/a Jerrys Auto Specialties Ltd.,
John Doe,
Mary Roe,
XYZ Corporation,
Appellants.
LANSING, Judge
In this appeal from a judgment of eviction, Jerry Chapman challenges the district court's judgment on the grounds that the lease-termination notice failed to comply with the requirements of the lease, that the notice was waived by acceptance of rent, and that the ninety-day notice was insufficient in failing to specify a calendar date on which it terminated the lease and required the premises be vacated. Because the notice was not waived and because it effectively met the requirements of the lease and a preexisting district court order, we affirm.


A07-1460
Jodi Hawkins,
Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of
Bonnie Moore,
Appellant,
vs.
Annie Fontaine, M.D.,
Respondent.
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of a medical-malpractice claim based on the failure to comply with the expert-disclosure statute, arguing that (1) the disclosures are sufficient to make the prima facie showing required by the statute and (2) the district court improperly evaluated and weighed the expert opinions against rebuttal evidence. We reverse and remand.


A07-1613
Robert S. Ervasti,
Relator,
vs.
County of Hennepin,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
KALITOWSKI, Judge
Relator Robert S. Ervasti challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he quit his job and was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Relator argues that the ULJ (1) was biased and made several errors while conducting relator's telephone hearing and (2) erred in concluding that relator is not qualified for unemployment benefits. Relator claims that he quit because of medical necessity or, in the alternative, because he had good reason to quit attributable to his employer. We affirm.


A07-1615
Thomas Bicha,
Appellant,
vs.
Water Gremlin Company,
Respondent.
COLLINS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondent, arguing that the district court erred by concluding that he had not (1) made a report in good faith under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, (2) established that he was discharged in violation of public policy, or (3) shown that he was entitled to proceed to trial on his claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Because there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the district court did not err as a matter of law, we affirm.


A07-1654
In the Matter of the Petition of Option One Mortgage Corporation,
Regarding Certificate of Title No. 1110609 or the Current Certificate
SCHELLHAS, Judge
On appeal after remand, appellant challenges the district court's decision that ambiguity in a townhouse association's declaration of covenants was to be construed against appellant and that, as a result, appellant had no interest in the townhouse. Because we conclude that the district court's ruling was consistent with our remand instructions, we affirm.


A07-1699
Parents in Community Action Inc.,
Relator,
vs.
Dawn Byrd,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
SCHELLHAS, Judge
By writ of certiorari, relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) to not reconsider a decision that respondent had good cause to quit where relator did not show good cause for failing to participate in a scheduled evidentiary hearing. Because relator failed to participate in the evidentiary hearing without good cause, we affirm.


A07-1750
Autumn H. May,
Relator,
vs.
Coldwater Creek Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
STONEBURNER, Judge
Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment law judge (ULJ) disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits because she was discharged for misconduct. We affirm.


A07-1791
Katherina Theresa Bernhagen, petitioner,
Respondent,
vs.
Peter John Bernhagen,
Appellant.
STONEBURNER, Judge
Appellant argues that the evidence and findings are insufficient to support the district court's issuance of an OFP to respondent. We affirm.


A07-1825
Hoa Ly,
Relator,
vs.
Navarre Corporation (1991),
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
COLLINS, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he quit his employment without a good reason caused by the employer. Because the ULJ properly applied the law and did not abuse her discretion, we affirm.


A07-1865
Lake Carlos Area Association,
Appellant,
vs.
Douglas County,
Respondent.
KALITOWSKI, Judge
On appeal from dismissal of a claim brought under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), appellant Lake Carlos Area Association, a nonprofit organization of residents and property owners, argues that respondent Douglas County's decision not to require an environmental impact statement for the CSAH 42 highway-expansion project was erroneous as a matter of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, and arbitrary and capricious. Specifically, appellant claims that the county: (1) erroneously considered the supplemental report and plans as part of the administrative record; (2) failed to analyze all three phases of the project; (3) failed to give proper consideration to the cumulative potential effects of related existing or anticipated projects; and (4) failed to undertake adequate environmental review of certain shoreland-setback standards and design-minimization requirements set forth in Minn. R. 6120.3300 (2007). We affirm.


A07-1894
In re the Marriage of:
Christal Lee Erickson, petitioner,
Appellant,
vs.
Brent Allan Erickson,
Respondent.
HUDSON, Judge
On appeal from the district court's change to a stipulated parenting-time schedule in a dissolution judgment, appellant-mother argues (1) the change substantively modifies, rather than merely clarifies, the parties' stipulated agreement and reflects a misunderstanding of that agreement and that respondent-father's allegations do not support the modification; and (2) the district court failed to make findings reflecting its consideration of the effect of the change on the child's best interests. We reverse.


A07-1921
Xia Yang, et al.,
Respondents,
vs.
Terry Scott,
Defendant,
Lee S. Vague, et al.,
Appellants.
LANSING, Judge
A Woodbury police officer and the City of Woodbury appeal the denial of their summary judgment motions on the grounds of official immunity and vicarious official immunity in a negligence action brought by a driver and two passengers who were severely injured when the car of a fleeing criminal suspect struck their sport utility vehicle. We conclude that genuine issues of material fact exist on the application of the city's pursuit policy and the provision of the policy governing activation of emergency equipment. But we conclude, as a matter of law, that the remaining contested policy provisions describe discretionary conduct that is protected by official immunity. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.


A07-1950
In re the Marriage of:
Kelley K. Botts, petitioner,
Respondent,
vs.
Joseph Patrick Wagner,
Appellant.
KLAPHAKE, Judge
On appeal from the denial of appellant's motion to modify his child support obligation, appellant argues that the district court (1) made findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not supported by the record; (2) erred in denying his motion to be awarded the tax dependency exemptions; and (3) abused its discretion in awarding respondent attorney fees. We reverse and remand.


A07-1965
A08-0434
In re the Marriage of:
Kelly Leslie Fedt, petitioner,
Respondent,
vs.
Steven Nels Fedt,
Appellant.
MUEHLBERG, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion to modify spousal maintenance and the district court's award of attorney fees to respondent. Because we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to modify and because the district court failed to allocate the amount of attorney fees between the need-based and conduct-based awards, we reverse and remand.


A07-2310
Gary A. St. Germaine,
Appellant,
vs.
Dorothy Mae Girard,
Respondent.
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellant challenges the jury's award in his personal injury suit on the grounds that the award was manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence and influenced by the jury's prejudice against him. We affirm on the basis that the jury's verdict was reasonably supported by the evidence.


A07-2371
Carrol P. Peterson,
Relator,
vs.
AlliedBarton Security Services LLC,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
STONEBURNER, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he engaged in employment misconduct, arguing that his behavior was not misconduct but merely an error in judgment. Because relator acknowledges that he sunbathed shirtless while on duty as a uniformed security guard and we conclude that this conduct displayed disregard for the reasonable expectations of his employer constituting misconduct, 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.