Jump To Navigation

News and Cases

BAPCPA Milavetz Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States Press Release

Awareness of Traumatic Brain Injuries

Yasmin / Yaz MDL Sent to Southern District of Illinois

Yaz / Yasmin Class Action vs. MDL Consolidation

Yaz - Yasmin - Ocella Side Effects Lawsuit

Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. is proud to announce the expansion of the firm’s practice areas to include pharmaceutical liability claims

Drugs Recalled for Dangerous Side-Effects

Defective Chinese Drywall

Robert J. Milavetz, Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. public service for over 45 years.  Read the article.

U.S Supreme Court to hear the case of Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. U.S. challenging the Bankruptcy Act of 2005 BAPCPA.

     Read Milavetz Brief by clicking here.

     Read American Bar Association ABA amicus brief here.

     Read AARP, Brennan Justice Center, NACBA amici brief here.

Malt O Meal Recall salmonella contaminated foods from Cub Foods,Diamond Crystal, Fastco, Flavorite, Foodland, Good 'n Hearty, Hearty Traditions, Hy-Top, IGA, Mom's Best Natural, Megaroons,Millville, Our Family, Richfood, Shop 'n Save and Smart Menu.  Click here for more information.

2 Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. attorneys appear in Minnesota Lawyer for groundbreaking 1st Amendment challenge to the Bankruptcy Act of 2005 (BAPCPA).
Click here to read the article.

Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States makes cover story of Minnesota Bench & Bar April 2008. Click here to read the article.

New York Times Article June 2009 on Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States

Insured, but bankrupt in medical crisis

Eighth Circuit Opinion in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States.

National Law Journal on BAPCPA challenge.

Law & Politics, Lawsuits of the Year (Two listings!!):

Minnesota Bar Association Lecture on BAPCPA of 2005 and the decisions in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A.

American Bar Association Journal articles regarding Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, et. al. v. United States. 1 2 3 4

National Law Journal article regarding Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, et.al v. United States

Reuters articles on BAPCPA challenge. 1 2

Consumer Affairs article on Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz et.al. v. United States.

Wall Street Journal article on Milavetz v. U.S.

Finance and Commerce on Milavetz v. U.S.

Lawreader regarding Milavetz v. U.S.

ABA Journal, A Debt Defying Act:

For access to the Amanda Jax, et.al. v. Sidelines Bar & Grill, et. al. Summons & Complaint, click here

Nancy Grace, CNN, coverage of Amanda Jax

WCCO coverage of Amanda Jax Case

Further WCCO coverage of Amanda Jax Case

Mankato Free Press Article Amanda Jax

Star Tribune Article Amanda Jax

KARE11 coverage of Amanda Jax

Minnesota State University on Amanda Jax

Join Together article Amanda Jax

AM1500 Coverage of Amanda Jax

Lacrosse Tribune Coverage of Amanda Jax

Bicycle Safety

Minnesota Lawyer interview with Chad Wm. Schulze regarding bicycle safety.

News

Product Liability

[03/09] Manufacturer expands pet food recall
[03/09] Prius with stuck accelerator glides to safe stop
[03/08] Roche suspends arthritis drug study after deaths
[03/08] Toyota disputes critic who blames electronics
[03/05] Australian court: Vioxx doubled heart attack risk

More...

Personal Injury

[03/09] Superintendent accidentally fires gun during class
[03/09] Park, slain trainer's family want video suppressed
[03/09] Hoped-for drop in childbirth deaths not happening
[03/09] Pa. suit: Bank wrongly repossessed home, took bird
[03/08] UN says mother-child HIV can be eliminated by 2015

More...

Employment Practices

[03/08] Allergan CEO got $11.1M in compensation in 2009
[03/08] Court will decide if NASA checks can continue
[03/04] Jobless claims drop, productivity revised higher
[03/04] No is no: More men file sexual harassment claims
[03/03] GM's Bob Lutz to retire

More...

Case Summaries

Workers' Comp

[03/05] Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.

[03/03] City of Laguna Beach v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n
In a city's action against an insurance company seeking reimbursement for incurring workers' compensation liability that exceeded its self-insured retention, grant of insurance company's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the addition of subdivision (c)(13) to Ins. Code section 1063.1 did not abrogate Denny's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 104 Cal.App.4th 1433 (2003); 2) the trial court properly invoked the Denny's rule when it granted summary judgment and concluded that the city cannot obtain reimbursement from defendant under section 1063.1(c)(13) as, although this provision renders the obligation of an insolvent excess workers' compensation insurer a "covered claim" that defendant must ordinarily reimburse, defendant need not reimburse a permissibly self-insured employer for benefits paid to an employee for cumulative injury if the employer's liability is based in part on a period of time when the employer was self-insured and chose not to buy excess insurance for the particular risk.

[02/26] Lara v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision against the petitioner and in favor of the defendant is affirmed as, the petitioner, hired twice in the space of 12 months to prune bushes for a diner, was not an employee of the diner at the time he sustained injury, but rather, he was an independent contractor exempt from workers' compensation coverage.

[02/26] Elliott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Decision of the WCAB that plaintiff's employer was not obligated to provide the requested spinal surgery is reversed and remanded as, in light of its en banc decision in Cervantes v. El Aguila Food Products, Inc. (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1336 explicitly denouncing the Brasher holding relied on by the WCAB in this case, the employer is ordered to authorize the requested surgery or object to the treating physician's recommendation under 4062(b) within 10 days of receipt of this order, thereby commencing the spinal surgery second opinion process.

[02/12] Conley v. Nat'l Mines Corp.
Order of the Benefits Review Board reversing an Administrative Law Judge's award of black lung benefits on a widow's claim filed by petitioner under the Black Lung Benefits Act after her husband died of metastatic lung cancer is affirmed as the Board did not err in concluding that the decedent's treating physician's opinion was insufficient to carry the widow's burden of proof, based on the standard previously articulated in Eastover Mining Co. v. Williams, 338 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2003).

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[03/05] Bustos v. Martini Club Inc.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on a late-night confrontation with several off-duty police officers, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the election of remedies provisions in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 101.106 applied to state law intentional tort claims against a governmental unit and its employees; 2) plaintiff did not allege facts to suggest that the officers who assaulted him misused or abused their official power; and 3) bystander officers had no constitutional duty to prevent the alleged assault.

[03/05] Howard v. St. Germain
In an appeal from the district court's order assessing attorney's fees against defendants based on their improper removal of the case, the order is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in taxing costs and attorney's fees to defendants because an objectively reasonable basis for removal did not exist.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

[03/04] Aills v. Boemi
In plaintiff's medical malpractice suit against defendant plastic surgeon arising out of negligence in connection with an elective surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeal is quashed and remanded as the district court erred in reversing for a new trial on the basis of an improper argument by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument.

[03/04] Coito v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiff's wrongful death suit against the State of California and various other defendants for the drowning death of her 13-year old son, superior court's denial of plaintiff's motion to compel production of certain recorded witness statements is reversed and plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus granted where: 1) written and recorded witness statements, including not only those produced by the witness and turned over to counsel but also those taken by counsel, are not attorney work-product, and thus neither is a list of witnesses from whom statements have been obtained; and 2) the state failed to show that the recorded statements of the four juvenile witnesses were protected work product.

More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

For over 43 years, the law firm of Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz has been confidently serving clients from their offices in Minnesota, including individuals in the areas of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina, Coon Rapids, Brooklyn Center, Roseville, St. Cloud, the entire Twin Cities metro area, western Wisconsin including Hudson, Menomonie, and Eau Claire, and all of the surrounding areas.

Tell Us About Your Case:

Five Convenient Offices

Edina Office
6500 France Avenue South
Edina, Minnesota 55435
Phone: (952) 920-7777
Fax: (952) 920-6869
Other Office Locations

Search Our Site: