EN
BANC CALENDAR
Before
the Minnesota Supreme Court
April
2015
SUMMARY
OF ISSUES
Summaries
prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Monday, March 30, 2015
Courtroom 300,
Minnesota Judicial Center
Nonoral: Christopher C. Roskos, by Mark Roskos,
Relator, vs. Bauer Electric, Inc. and Federated Mutual Group, Respondents --
Case No. A14-1831: Relator Christopher Roskos suffered a
work-related injury resulting in a 99% permanent partial disability. The employer, respondent Bauer Electric,
accepted liability and agreed Roskos was permanently and totally disabled. Roskos requested a lump sum payment of his
benefits, as allowed by Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 2a(b). Bauer applied a 5% discount rate to the total value
of Roskos’s benefits. Roskos argued that
the correct discount rate is the 10-year Treasury bill rate, or 1.59%. The compensation judge found that the
evidence supported Bauer’s 5% discount rate because it was “reasonable and
appropriate.” The Workers’ Compensation
Court of Appeals (“WCCA”) affirmed.
On
appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the WCCA erred in
affirming the compensation judge’s determination of the discount rate
applicable to Roskos’s lump-sum payment for permanent partial disability
benefits pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 2a(b). (Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals)
Nonoral: Kristopher J. Ouellette, Relator, vs.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Claims Management, Inc., Respondents, Minnesota
Department of Human Services/BRS, Intervenor -- Case No. A14-2000: Relator Kristopher Ouellette suffered a
work-related injury to his foot that led to pain, swelling, and
hypersensitivity, for which he received treatment. Ouellette was later assigned a 75% permanent
partial disability rating. After
observing Ouellette for a period of time and securing a second examination, employer
Wal-Mart Stores filed a petition to discontinue benefits, which was granted by
a compensation judge.
Ouellette
appealed, and the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed, finding
Ouellette waived his challenge to the denial of his disability rating by
failing to raise the issue in his brief; that Wal-Mart followed the correct
statutory procedure to discontinue benefits; and that benefits do not “vest”
once payment begins such that an employer waives the right to dispute
entitlement to benefits at a later time.
On
appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether
the compensation judge’s order conformed with statutes and administrative rules
for the payment of permanent partial disability benefits and the discontinuance
of periodic weekly permanent partial disability benefits; (2) whether the compensation
judge’s Findings of Fact and Order were clearly erroneous and unsupported by
substantial evidence in view of the entire record; and (3) whether Ouellette waived
the issue of the compensation judge’s denial of his claim for permanent partial
disability because it was not briefed pursuant to Minn. R. 5800.0900, subp. 1. (Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals)
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Courtroom 300,
Minnesota Judicial Center
Guardian Energy,
LLC, Relator, vs. County of Waseca, Respondent -- Case No. A14-1883, A14-2168:
These consolidated appeals challenge the Tax
Court’s fair-market valuation for an ethanol production facility in Janesville,
Minnesota. The tax court resolved
disputes over expert appraisal opinions and the specific items of property
included or excluded from the County’s assessment, and found valuation
determinations higher than those offered by the parties or the experts.
On
petition for certiorari to the supreme court by the property owner, Guardian Energy,
the following issues are presented: (1)
whether the tax court erred when it found that Guardian presented sufficient
credible evidence to rebut the prima facie validity of the assessments, despite
rejecting the testimony of those same witnesses with respect to other issues of
fact; (2) whether the tax court erred in its analysis of external obsolescence;
and (3) whether the tax court erred when it determined that certain process
tanks and distillation columns at the subject property are taxable real
property under Minn. Stat. § 272.03, subd. 1. (Minnesota Tax Court)
Wells Concrete
Products Co. and CCMSI, Relators, vs. David J. Mach, Jr., Respondent, and Blue
Cross Blue Shield and Operating Engineers Local 49 Health & Welfare Fund, Intervenors
-- Case No. A14-2065: Employee David Mach’s request for medical
benefits for a spinal cord stimulator, recommended for treatment of a 2008
work-related injury, was denied in June 2011.
The compensation judge found that Mach, who relied on the opinion of his
treating physician, did not show the device was “reasonable medical treatment”
for the injury. The Workers’
Compensation Court of Appeals (“WCCA”) affirmed.
In
2013, Mach filed a petition for medical benefits for payment for the removal
and replacement of the spinal cord simulator.
Mach relied on a 2012 letter from a different physician, who stated that
the treatment using the spinal cord stimulator was reasonable and
necessary. The compensation judge
granted employer Wells Concrete Products’ motion to dismiss Mach’s claim as
barred by res judicata and collateral
estoppel.
The
WCCA found that the 2011 order covered only claims for expenses prior to
January 2011. Because the current claim
was for medical expenses after January 2012, the WCCA reversed.
On
appeal to the supreme court, the following issue is presented: whether the WCCA
erred as a matter of law in reversing the compensation judge’s determination
that the doctrines of res judicata
and collateral estoppel bar Mach’s claim for medical expenses. (Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals)
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Courtroom 300,
Minnesota Judicial Center
In re Petition
for Disciplinary Action against Scott Selmer, a Minnesota Attorney,
Registration No. 156024 -- Case No. A14-0098: An attorney discipline
case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate
based on the facts of the matter.
Monday, April 6, 2015
Courtroom 300,
Minnesota Judicial Center
Commerce Bank,
Respondent, vs. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant -- Case No.
A14-0247: Appellant West Bend Mutual Insurance Company
insured a building that was vandalized after the owner left the property vacant. Respondent Commerce Bank, the mortgage-holder
of the property, was listed as an additional insured under the insurance policy
and submitted a claim for the loss. West
Bend denied the claim, relying on a vacancy provision in the policy, which
provided that the insurer will not pay for any loss or damage caused by
vandalism if the building “has been vacant for more than 60 consecutive days
before that loss or damage occurs.” Commerce
Bank asserted that it was entitled to coverage under the standard mortgage
clause in the policy, which provided that if the insurer denies a claim because
of the owner’s “acts” or because the owner “failed to comply with the terms of
this policy, the mortgage-holder will still have the right to receive loss
payment.”
Commerce
Bank commenced suit against West Bend, claiming breach of contract and seeking
declaratory relief. On cross-motions for
summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment to West Bend. The court of appeals reversed and remanded,
concluding that “West Bend’s denial of coverage for loss, which was sustained
as a result of the owner causing the property to remain vacant for more than 60
days, does not apply to Commerce” under the standard mortgage clause.
On
appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the vacancy
provision in the insurance policy applies to the claim of a mortgage-holder. (Dakota County District Court)
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
University of St.
Thomas Law School
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Mpatanishi
Syanaloli Tayari-Garrett, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 342075 -- Case
No. A14-0995: An
attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any,
is appropriate based on the facts of the matter.
Wednesday, April
8, 2015
Courtroom 300,
Minnesota Judicial Center
State of
Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II, Appellant -- Case No.
A14-0942: A Hennepin County grand jury indicted
appellant Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II, with one count of aiding and abetting
first-degree premeditated murder; one count of aiding and abetting first-degree
felony murder; two counts of aiding and abetting attempted first-degree
premeditated murder; and two counts of aiding and abetting attempted
first-degree felony murder. A jury found
Taylor guilty of all counts. The
district court sentenced Taylor to life in prison without the possibility of
parole and two concurrent terms of 180 months in prison sentences.
On
appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are: (1) whether the district
court denied Taylor his federal and state constitutional rights to a public
trial by sua sponte excluding from the trial all members of the public who
did not have photo identification; (2) whether the district court deprived Taylor
of his constitutional right to due process by not allowing Taylor to present
evidence that the shooters had their own personal motives to commit the charged
crimes, which was relevant to disprove the State’s theory that Taylor
intentionally aided and abetted the shooters; (3) whether the district court
deprived Taylor of his right to a fair trial by admitting irrelevant,
unhelpful, and highly prejudicial rebuttal testimony by a gang expert, to
impeach Taylor’s testimony regarding the collateral issue of whether Taylor was
a member of a gang; (4) whether the district court committed reversible error
by materially misstating the law on aiding-and-abetting liability and expansive
liability within its instructions to the jury; (5) whether the district court
committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury that prior-conviction
evidence could only be used to impeach Taylor’s credibility; and (6) whether the
cumulative effect of the errors in this case deprived Taylor of a fair trial. (Hennepin
County District Court)