EN BANC CALENDAR

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
February 2014
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

            In re Guardianship of: Jeffers J. Tschumy, Ward – Case No. A12-2179:  In 2009, a guardian was appointed for Jeffers Tschumy.  The guardianship appointment included the power and authority to provide for Mr. Tschumy’s “care, comfort, and maintenance, including . . . health care” and to give “any necessary consent to enable, or to withhold consent for” Mr. Tschumy to receive “necessary medical . . . care . . . [or] treatment.”  In April 2012, Mr. Tschumy lost consciousness and suffered a brain injury.  Although he was revived at the hospital, due to the nature of his condition, Mr. Tschumy’s doctors, the hospital ethics committee, and the guardian concluded that Mr. Tschumy’s life support should be discontinued.

            The hospital filed a motion in district court, seeking clarification whether the guardian had the authority to direct the removal of life support without judicial consent.  After appointing an attorney to represent Mr. Tschumy, the district court concluded that the guardian was not authorized to direct the removal of life support without a court order, but the court also authorized the removal of Mr. Tschumy’s life support.  Mr. Tschumy died on May 17, 2012. 

            The guardian appealed.  The court of appeals reversed the district court.

            On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the guardian had the authority to withdraw Mr. Tschumy’s life-sustaining medical treatment without  an order from the district court when that decision was not challenged by any interested person and was made in consultation with doctors and a medical ethics committee.  (Hennepin County)

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. David Muniz Bustos, Appellant – Case No. A13-0961:  Following a jury trial, appellant David Bustos was convicted of first-degree domestic-abuse murder.  On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether Bustos is entitled to a new trial because the jury instructions materially misstated the law regarding the State’s burden to prove a past pattern of domestic abuse; (2) whether there was insufficient evidence to prove Bustos engaged in a past pattern of domestic abuse; and (3) whether Bustos is entitled to a new trial because the district court excluded evidence relevant to his intoxication defense.  (McLeod County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Dylan Micheal Kelley, Appellant – A12-0993:  Following a jury trial, appellant Dylan Kelley was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree robbery.  On appeal, Kelley claimed the district court committed plain error in its jury instructions on aiding-and-abetting liability.  While his appeal was pending before the court of appeals, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2012), which requires courts to provide jurors with additional instruction in aiding-and-abetting cases.  Relying on the “plain at the time of appeal” rule, Kelley urged the court of appeals to reverse his conviction based on the district court’s failure to comply with the new Milton requirement.  The court of appeals affirmed.

 On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the district court committed a plain error in its jury instructions when the law was unsettled at the time of trial but became settled in favor of a defendant during the pendency of an appeal.  (Benton County) 

            Medical Staff of Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center on its own behalf and in its Representative Capacity for its Members, et al., Appellants vs. Avera Marshall d/b/a Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center, et al., Respondents – Case No. A12-2117:  Respondent Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center is a nonprofit, charitable hospital.  In 2012, Avera’s board of directors made changes to the hospital’s medical staff bylaws without first submitting the changes to the medical staff for a vote.  Although Avera did not submit the changes to the medical staff for a vote, medical staff voted on and rejected the changes to the medical staff bylaws.

Appellants brought a declaratory judgment action in district court, asking the court to declare that the medical staff has standing and capacity to sue and that the medical staff bylaws are an enforceable contract between the medical staff and Avera.  Appellants also asked the district court to enjoin Avera from repealing the old bylaws and imposing new ones.  The district court granted respondents summary judgment.  The court of appeals affirmed.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether  medical staff bylaws are an enforceable contract between a hospital and the hospital’s medical staff; and (2) whether a medical staff has the legal capacity to sue under Minn. Stat. § 540.151 (2012).  (Lyon County)

Seagate Technology, LLC, Respondent vs. Western Digital Corporation, et al., Appellants, Sining Mao, Appellant – Case No. A12-1944:  In an arbitration proceeding, respondent Seagate Technology, LLC asserted claims against appellants Western Digital Corporation, et al., and Sining Mao, including a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets.  During the proceeding, Seagate sought sanctions against appellants for the alleged fabrication of evidence.  Following a hearing, the arbitrator found that Mao had fabricated documents and that Western Digital knew of the fabrications.  Determining that the fabrications warranted “severe sanctions,” the arbitrator precluded any evidence or defense disputing the validity, the misappropriation, or the use of certain trade secrets.  The arbitrator ultimately awarded Seagate damages of $525 million, plus interest. 

The district court vacated the arbitration award in part and set the matter for rehearing before a different arbitrator, concluding that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by imposing “case-terminating sanctions.”  The court of appeals reversed and remanded. 

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether appellants waived their challenge to the arbitrator’s authority to impose punitive sanctions; (2) whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority by imposing punitive sanctions; and (3) whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering a rehearing before a new arbitrator.  (Hennepin County)

Todd Schwanke, Respondent vs. Minnesota Department of Administration, Appellant – Case No. A12-2062:  Respondent Todd Schwanke, a sergeant with the Steele County Sheriff’s Office, filed an appeal with appellant Minnesota Department of Administration under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 13.01-.90 (2012).  The appeal challenged the accuracy and completeness of a performance evaluation.  The Department dismissed the appeal.  The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that the Department exceeded its statutory authority by dismissing the appeal without ordering a contested case hearing.    

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether a government employee’s performance evaluation may be challenged as inaccurate or incomplete under Minn. Stat. § 13.04, subd. 4; (2) whether the Department may dismiss an appeal that challenges the accuracy or completeness of a performance evaluation without ordering a contested case hearing; and (3) whether a government employee may rely on new claims and evidence when appealing an employer’s determination that the challenged data in the performance evaluation are accurate and complete.  (Minnesota Department of Administration)       

Travis M. Minke, Respondent vs. City of Minneapolis, et al., Appellants – Case No. A12-2272:  Respondent Travis Minke was employed by appellant City of Minneapolis as a community service officer.  He was supervised by appellant Janice Callaway, a police sergeant.  Minke resigned from his position and applied for positions with other police departments.  When he was not hired by the Mounds View Police Department, Minke brought an action against appellants, alleging that Sergeant Callaway had made defamatory statements about him during a background investigation.  The district court denied appellants’ motion for summary judgment on the defamation claim based on absolute privilege.  The court of appeals affirmed.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether absolute privilege applies to the statements made by Sergeant Callaway during the background investigation.  (Hennepin County)

JME of Monticello, Inc., Relator vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent – Case No. A13-1968:  Relator JME of Monticello, Inc. is a waste management service provider that collects construction and demolition debris from commercial waste generators.  Minnesota imposes a tax on commercial waste generators on the nonmixed municipal solid waste they generate.  Minn. Stat. § 297H.04, subd. 2(a) (2012).  Waste management service providers must calculate this tax, charge their customers for it, and then remit the tax to the state.  This tax “must be calculated by the waste management service provider using the same method for calculating the waste management service fee so that both are calculated according to container capacity, actual volume, or weight.” Id. 

Following an audit, respondent the Commissioner of Revenue determined JME was incorrectly computing the state tax on nonmixed municipal solid waste and assessed JME with additional taxes and interest for the periods March 1, 2009 to July 31, 2012.  JME appealed to the Minnesota Tax Court, which granted summary judgment to the Commissioner.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the term “waste management service fee” in Minn. Stat. § 297H.04, subd. 2, refers to the fee charged by a waste management service provider to a waste generator.  (Minnesota Tax Court)