Volume 7 — North Western Reporter, Third Series

1. An injured employee's right to assert a direct claim for unpaid medical expenses is not precluded by a medical provider's failure to intervene in a pending workers' compensation proceeding under Minnesota Statutes section 176.361 (2022). 2. The compensation judge's findings that the injured employee sustained a permanent work injury on October 1, 2018, and the compensation judge's apportionment determination, are not manifestly contrary to the evidence. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

An administrative-law judge does not have the statutory authority under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465, subd. 1(b) (2022), to decide whether an individual has contractually waived a claim to continued health-insurance coverage. Reversed.

I. A personal representative may be removed for cause under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-611 (2022), but such removal does not discharge the personal representative from liability for transactions or omissions occurring before removal. II. Unless a claim against a personal representative for breach of fiduciary duty has previously been barred by adjudication, or excepted as provided in the closing statement, the statute of limitations for such claims, as set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 524.3-1005 (2022), is six months after the filing of the closing statement. Reversed and remanded.

1. Subdivision 1 of the Minnesota Good Samaritan overdose medical assistance act, Minn. Stat. § 604A.05 (2022), provides for immunity from prosecution, not an affirmative defense, and eligibility for immunity under the statute is therefore properly determined by the district court. 2. The phrase "[a] person acting in good faith who seeks medical assistance" in the first sentence of Minn. Stat. § 604A.05, subd. 1, means a person acting with an honesty in belief or purpose who tries to locate medical assistance. 3. The phrase "acting in good faith" in the first sentence of Minn. Stat. § 604A.05, subd. 1, modifies the phrase that immediately follows: "who seeks medical assistance"; it does not modify the requirement to "cooperate[] with the authorities," which is set out in subparagraph (2) of subdivision 1. Whether the criteria set out in subparagraphs (1) and (2) are satisfied is to be judged objectively, independent of the phrase "acting in good faith." Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

1. The protections of the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act (MFFIA), Minn. Stat. §§ 595.021-.025 (2022), are not limited only to newsgathering information obtained by means of lawful, nontortious conduct. 2. In a proceeding to enforce a third-party subpoena, a district court may not require the third party to produce a privilege log or submit information for in camera inspection that is privileged under the MFFIA and does not fall within a statutory exception. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

1. Under the Minnesota notice pleading standard, the allegations in the complaint identifying U.S. Bank, N.A. as a shareholder and describing actions taken by U.S. Bank as facts supporting shareholder status were sufficient to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings. 2. Because the court is evenly divided on whether beneficial owners of a closely held corporation may initiate an action for a buy-out of their interests under Minnesota Statutes section 302A.751 (2022), we affirm the decision of the court of appeals dismissing appellants' buy-out claim. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A guilty plea is inaccurate, thus entitling a defendant to withdraw the plea to correct a manifest injustice under Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1, when a defendant makes a statement during the plea colloquy essentially negating an element of the charged offense, only leading questions are asked in an attempt to rehabilitate the plea, the statement is neither withdrawn nor corrected by the defendant on the record, and the factual basis for the plea is not sufficiently established by other means. Reversed and remanded.

Minnesota Statutes section 207A.13, subdivision 2(a) (2022), does not violate the Electors Clause of the United States Constitution because statutes that govern the presidential nomination primary do not fall within the scope of the Electors Clause. Petition denied.

1. The Commissioner of Revenue has the authority to adjust a taxpayer's reported federal adjusted gross income when determining the correct amount of state income tax owed by the taxpayer under our decision in Specktor v. Commissioner of Revenue, 308 N.W.2d 806 (Minn. 1981) and Minn. Stat. § 270C.33, subdivision 4 (2022). 2. The tax court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Revenue. 2 3. The statutory penalty imposed for filing a frivolous tax return under Minn. Stat. § 289A.60, subd. 7 (2022), is not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clauses and Excessive Fines Clauses of the United States Constitution and Minnesota Constitution or the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Affirmed. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

A party seeking injunctive relief under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA), Minn. Stat. §§ 116B.01-.13 (2022), has the burden of demonstrating that the requested injunctive relief is necessary or appropriate to protect the environment and will not impose unnecessary hardship on the enjoined party. Reversed; motion denied.

1. An appeal is not moot where there remains a live controversy as to a part of the order on appeal or, alternatively, where a favorable decision on the merits of the appeal may afford some relief to the appellant. 2. The independent, extra-statutory basis for appeal of an order issuing a peremptory writ of mandamus before entry of final judgment as a final order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding, which was first recognized in State ex rel. 1 Matthews v. Webber, 17 N.W. 339 (Minn. 1883), has been extinguished by amendment to Rule 103.03(g) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure; an order issuing a peremptory writ of mandamus is also not appealable under Rule 103.03(a) of those rules as an "irregular judgment," and our prior reliance on such a legal fiction, beginning in State ex rel. Mortenson v. Copeland, 77 N.W. 221 (Minn. 1898), is disclaimed and overruled. 3. Under the supreme court's inherent authority and Rule 102 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, the supreme court has the authority to suspend the final judgment requirement under Rule 103.03(a) of those rules, exercise jurisdiction over an otherwise defective appeal, and remand to the court of appeals to consider the merits of the appeal. Reversed and remanded.

The appellant was not prejudiced by the district court's refusal to instruct the jury on first-degree heat-of-passion manslaughter because the jury was presented with instructions for first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder and found the appellant guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. Affirmed.

1. The district court did not commit reversible error when it concluded that an application for a warrant to search appellant's Facebook accounts provided the issuing judge with a substantial basis for determining that there was a fair probability that evidence of the alleged crimes would be found on those accounts. 2. Given the circumstances of the case, the nature of the crimes under investigation, and the difficulty of articulating a more precise description of the evidence sought, the district court did not commit reversible error when it determined that the warrant satisfied minimal constitutional requirements for particularity. 3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying appellant's petition for postconviction relief. Affirmed.

Absent any mitigating factors, disbarment is the appropriate discipline for an attorney who misappropriates client funds, commits fraud on the court, neglects—and ultimately abandons—his role as a court-appointed parenting consultant, fails to maintain trust account books and records, and fails to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. Disbarred.

A childcare provider does not possess a protected property interest in suspended Child Care Assistance Program payments or a revoked Child Care Assistance Program authorization when the agency temporarily suspends payment and authorization during a pending investigation pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 119B.13, subd. 6(d), 119B.161, subd. 3, 245E.02 (2022 & Supp. 2023). Affirmed.

A petitioner is not exonerated for the purpose of seeking exoneration compensation under the Minnesota Imprisonment and Exoneration Remedies Act (MIERA), Minn. Stat. §§ 611.362-.368 (2022), when the petitioner's conviction for actual possession of an unlawful item was reversed on the ground that an unconstitutional search required suppression of the evidence. Affirmed.

Because appellant's apartment door handle and lock were within the home's curtilage for purposes of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution, law-enforcement officers were required to obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause to swab those areas for the purpose of detecting trace amounts of controlled substances. Reversed.