The Court held that Webb’s Rule 702 motion to exclude expert testimony failed to show the three medical experts methods were unreliable because: (1) disagreement on conclusions of the experts is not a sufficient basis to establish that the opinions are contrary to accepted scientific practice and these issues are more appropriately the subject of cross examination; (2) Webb’s issue was with the accuracy of the experts analysis rather than the general reliability of the methods and these issues … [Read more...]

Direct evidence of pregnancy discrimination existed to overturn a jury’s verdict in favor of the employer where the employer rescinded a job offer upon learning of the applicant’s pregnancy and anticipated length of maternity leave. LaPoint v. Family Orthodontics, P.A., A15-0396 (Minn. App. Dec. 14, 2015). … [Read more...]

The court held that Wal-Mart’s termination of a Pharmacy Manager, due to Wal-Mart’s determination that there was “blatant disregard” by the employee of a visual verification standard operational procedure in the Pharmacy Operations Manual, was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory, reason for discharge and Plaintiff failed to present evidence to support the assertion that Wal-Mart’s reason for termination was pretext for age discrimination, and therefore, the court granted Wal-Mart’s summary judgment … [Read more...]

A full, final and complete settlement in a workers’ compensation matter, which unambiguously closes out all claims, precludes an employee from being subsequently awarded no-fault benefits in relation to the same incident. State Farm Ins. Cos. v. Wuorenma, A15-0763 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015) (unpublished). … [Read more...]

Contech built a bridge that was to be installed in Michigan and hired Element, an engineering construction firm, to inspect and test the structural welds. Element reported that the welds were not defective but upon transportation to Michigan, deficiencies were identified requiring Contech to remedy the defective welding. A 2-year Statute of Limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.051 applies to a company providing engineering consultancy. When Element inspected the bridge and reported that the welds … [Read more...]

Plaintiff Strelow was in attendance at the beer tent of a local festival when in her attempt to catch a Frisbee that was thrown in the crowd, Strelow tripped over what she perceived to be electrical cords on the ground. Strelow failed to prove that the Defendant caused the cords to be placed where she fell, or knew or should have known about the existence of the cords. The Court held that a Defendant owes no duty as a matter of law to warn or protect Plaintiff from an injury when the evidence is … [Read more...]

Plaintiff Pauli fell when she stepped out of her friend’s residence resulting in a compound fracture to her ankle. Defendant homeowners had an unusual height for their first step, which was protected by the statute of repose but they also failed to maintain proper lighting at the exit. The Statute of Repose, Wis. Stat. § 893.89, does not protect Defendants from liability if Plaintiff's damages resulted from negligent maintenance of the home, which in this case relates to the alleged failure to … [Read more...]

Plaintiff sustained multiple bite wounds after intervening in a dog fight between her dog Moosie and the neighbors pit bull Princess. Plaintiff claimed the Emergency Doctrine, which relieves a person from liability, in this instance for contributory negligence, for his or her own action or inaction when faced with an emergency that his or her conduct did not help to create. The court determined that her decision to wait until her dog could no longer yelp indicated that she had time to … [Read more...]

The court held that: (1) To state a claim under Title I of the ADA, the plaintiff must allege that he/she can perform the essential functions of his/her job with or without reasonable accommodation to be a “qualified individual” as defined under the ADA; and (2) A benefit plan that is private and not offered to the public in general, but rather limited to employees, is not a “public accommodation” under Title III of the ADA. Seese v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 14-cv-03286 (D. Minn. … [Read more...]