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UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-2436

Kallys Albert, Appellant,

vs.

Dungarvin Minnesota, Inc., et al.,
Respondents,
Zurich North America,
Respondent,
Velma J. Korbel, et al.,
Respondents.

ROSS, Judge
Kallys Albert appeals from the district court's dismissal of his civil suit against his former employer, his former supervisor, two of his former employer's clients, his former employer's insurer, the department of human rights, and the department's commissioner. The district court determined that Albert did not state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and it dismissed his complaint entirely. Nearly all of Albert's claims fail as a matter of law, but because we conclude that Albert stated a claim for intentional obstruction of his pursuit of workers' compensation benefits, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

= = = =

A08-0112

Hayyate Ali,
Relator,

vs.

Dakota County Community Development Agency,
Respondent.

STONEBURNER, Judge
Relator challenges termination of her Section 8 housing benefits, arguing that respondent misapplied the law to conclude that she did not comply with disclosure obligations, the record does not support the conclusion that relator refused or failed to make required disclosures, and the hearing officer's findings are inadequate. Because respondent's stated basis for terminating relator's benefits is legally insufficient and because the evidence does not support a finding that relator failed to cooperate with respondent, we reverse.

= = = =

A08-0500

In re: Estate of John G. Sauers,
also known as John Gustav Sauers,
Deceased.


CONNOLLY, Judge
In this appeal from an order probating a will, appellants assert that because there were modifications to the type-written will that may have been made after the will was executed, the district court erred in finding the will valid and not revoked. The district court's finding that the modifications were present at the time that the will was executed is not clearly erroneous, and, accordingly, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0509

In re the Marriage of: Jodi Siljendahl, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Eric Joseph Siljendahl,
Appellant.

PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from a marital-dissolution judgment, pro se appellant-husband argues that the district court (1) abused its discretion by (a) excluding evidence regarding the value of respondent-wife's retirement accounts and the value of improvements that appellant made to the marital home, and (b) refusing to consider wife's severance pay when dividing the marital property; and (2) failed to make comprehensive findings. We affirm.

= = = =

A08-0528

In re the Matter of:
Trisha Harris Ball, o/b/o R.H.P., petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Monty Marcel Prow,
Appellant.

JOHNSON, Judge
Trisha Harris Ball sought an order for protection (OFP) against Monty Marcel Prow on the ground that Prow had abused their son, R.H.P. The district court granted the petition and issued an OFP of three months' duration. Prow appeals, arguing that (1) the district court erred by admitting hearsay evidence, (2) the district court erred by denying his motion to reopen the hearing on the basis of newly discovered evidence, and (3) the evidence is insufficient to support the issuance of the OFP. We conclude that the district court did not err in admitting hearsay evidence but that the district court erred by denying Prow's motion to reopen the hearing. Therefore, we reverse the denial of Prow's post-trial motion and remand for further proceedings.

= = = =

A08-0541

Barry M. Ryter,
Relator,

vs.

Tessier's Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

WORKE, Judge
Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he quit his employment without good reason caused by his employer and is ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that he had good reason to quit and witnesses to support his contention. We affirm.

= = = =

A08-0565


In re the Marriage of:
Patricia L. Wisness, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Sidney A. Wisness,
Appellant.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion to terminate his spousal-maintenance obligation. Because the district court acted within its discretion, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0604

Julie Lohse,
Relator,

vs.

City of Oak Grove,
Respondent.

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Relator Julie Lohse challenges the Oak Grove City Council's (city council) action terminating her employment with respondent City of Oak Grove (the city), arguing that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and unsupported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

= = = =

A08-0605

In re the Marriage of:
Dean Francis Fahrendorf, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Pamela Jean Fahrendorf, n/k/a P. J. Kass,
Respondent.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him, the garnishment of his social-security disability benefit to collect arrearages on his spousal-maintenance obligation, and two attorney-fee awards totaling ,100. We affirm.

= = = =

A08-0725

Ross Nesbit Agencies, Inc.,
Appellant,

vs.

Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company,
Respondent,

Dean Soltis, et al.,
Respondents.

BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) of this declaratory-judgment action, arguing the court erred in determining that the complaint did not present a justiciable controversy. We affirm.

= = = =

A08-0806


David Swanson,
Respondent,

vs.

Rebecca Brewster, et al.,
Appellants.

BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court's determination of a collateral-source offset for past medical expenses following a jury's award of damages to respondent. Appellants argue that under the collateral source statute, Minn. Stat. 548.36, subd. 2 (2006), they are entitled to a full offset of respondent's past medical expenses, including amounts the medical providers wrote off. We affirm.

= = = =

A08-0878

Daniel E. Olean,
Appellant,

vs.

James E. Pomroy, et al.,
Respondents.


STONEBURNER, Judge
The district court found in favor of respondent on appellant's claims for injunctive relief and for damages allegedly caused by improvements to a driveway on respondents' property that resulted in the flooding of a portion of appellant's land. Appellant challenges the denial of his motion for relief from judgment or a new trial, arguing that the district court's findings of fact are not supported by the record and that the district court erred or abused its discretion in (1) denying his request for a jury trial; (2) finding that respondents' use of property was reasonable; (3) dismissing appellant's claim under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act; (4) denying appellant's motion to add a claim of punitive damages; (5) denying appellant's posttrial submission of additional evidence; and (6) awarding certain disbursements. We affirm the district court's judgment for respondents but reverse the award of disbursements and remand for additional findings relating to some of the claimed disbursements.

= = = =

A08-0987


Medtronic, Inc.,
Respondent,

vs.

Terry E. Hedemark,
Appellant.


BJORKMAN, Judge
This appeal arises from a dispute between a company and its former employee regarding enforcement of a competition-based forfeiture provision in a company-wide stock-option plan. The former employee challenges the district court's dismissal of his claims on summary judgment. We affirm.
= = = =

A08-1058

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
James Ellis Warbington.

HALBROOKS, Judge
On appeal from an order indeterminately committing appellant as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP), appellant contends that the civil commitment (1) is based on insufficient evidence, (2) violated his substantive due-process rights and his protection against double jeopardy, and (3) violated his procedural due-process rights. Because we conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence that appellant meets the statutory criteria for civil commitment and because appellant's constitutional rights were not violated, we affirm.
= = = =

A08-1095

Martha Lamas,
Appellant,

vs.

A-Du Enterprises, LLC,
d/b/a Best Buy Liquor and Beverage Warehouse,
Respondent.

STONEBURNER, Judge
In this dram-shop action, appellant challenges summary judgment granted to respondent, arguing that she raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether respondent made an illegal sale of alcohol to the intoxicated driver who injured her in an automobile accident. Because there is insufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the intoxicated driver purchased alcohol from respondent, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-1312, A08-1551


In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Jacob Karl Rask


TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Jacob Karl Rask challenges the orders initially and indeterminately committing him to treatment in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and as a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP). His separate appeals from the two orders have been consolidated by this court. Because the district court did not err in admitting evidence and because clear and convincing evidence in the record supports the determination that appellant meets the standards for commitment, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-1379
A08-1380

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of:

S.K.B. and M.A.R., Parents.

SCHELLHAS, Judge
In these consolidated termination-of-parental-rights appeals, appellant-mother argues that a past transfer of custody of three of her children was voluntary so a statutory presumption of palpable unfitness is not applicable to her and that if such a presumption is applicable, she rebutted it. Appellant-father, who concedes that a statutory presumption of palpable unfitness is applicable to him, argues that he rebutted the presumption and that the district court did not make adequate findings that termination is in his child's best interests. We affirm.

= = = =

A08-1680


In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Robert Arthur Litzau, Alleged Mentally Ill

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Robert Arthur Litzau challenges the district court order committing him as mentally ill, contending that he is entitled to a new trial as a result of the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that the evidence does not support the district court's findings. Because appellant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel and because clear and convincing evidence supports the district court's determinations that appellant presents a substantial likelihood of harm to himself or others, we affirm. Respondent's motion to strike documents that were not part of the trial-court record, as well as references to those documents in appellant's brief, is granted.
 

 
 
 

  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.