Opinions Archive

 

February 2012

Results 1 - 10  (22 total results)

  • 15-1800-22178-2-In the Matter of the Disqualification of Christopher Slack and the Revocation of the License of Tonya Slack
    February 29, 2012 - Was the request for reconsideration of the disqualification of Christopher Slack timely? If so, did the Department demonstrate that Mr. Slack should be disqualified from contact with persons served in a program licensed by the Department? Should Ms. Slack’s license to provide child care be revoked? The Disqualification of Christopher Slack be REVERSED; The Order of Revocation be REVERSED, and Ms. Slack’s license to provide child care reinstated.
  • 16-1005-22175-2 In the Matter of Modify My Loan US, LLC; Philip Domek; Mark Abdel; Maria Domek; and Richard Steele
    February 28, 2012 - Should the Commissioner take disciplinary action against Modify My Loan US, LLC, pursuant to Minn. R. 1400.6000 and Minn. Stat. § 58.14? The Administrative Law Judge finds that Modify My Loan US, LLC is in default and discipline against Modify My Loan US, LLC is appropriate.
  • 15-0320-22622-CV-MN DFL v MN Senate Republican Caucus
    February 27, 2012 - The Administrative Law Judge has now reviewed the Amended Complaint and attached exhibits, and has determined that the Amended Complaint sets forth a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.04, but fails to set forth prima facie violations of Minn. Stat. § 211B.09. This determination is described in more detail in the attached Memorandum. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT: The Complainant’s claim under § 211B.09 is dismissed without prejudice; and the Complainant’s claim under § 211B.04 will be scheduled for a prehearing conference and evidentiary hearing to be held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
  • 11-1800-22181-2 In the Matter of the Appeal of the Order of License Revocation of New Guidance Counseling Clinic
    February 27, 2012 - Should the license of New Guidance Counseling Clinic to provide chemical dependency treatment services be revoked under Minn. Stat. § 245A.07, subd. 3, because the Clinic: allowed a disqualified individual to provide direct contact services and have unsupervised access to clients or their personal property after an order of immediate removal was issued, in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 245C.14, subd. 2 and 245C.18; allowed an unqualified staff person to provide treatment services to clients served by the program, in violation of Minn. Rules parts 9530.6430, subp. 3,and 9530.6450, subp. 5; knowingly provided false and misleading information to the Commissioner of Human Services, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 245A.07, subd. 3; allowed progress notes to be entered in client files that were not prepared by the staff person providing the service, in violation of Minn. Rules part 9530.6425, subp. 3(A); allowed progress notes to be entered into client files that were not signed by the individual who prepared them, i8n violation of Minn. Rules part 9530.6440, subp. 1; failed to ensure that counseling groups did not exceed an average of 16 clients, in violation of Minn. Rules parts 9530.6445, subp. 4 and 9530.6440, subp. 1; failed to document weekly supervision of counselors with temporary permits as required by a variance approved on July 23, 2007, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 245A.04, subd. 9? IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Human Services take disciplinary action against the license of New Guidance Counseling Clinic to provide chemical dependency treatment services.
  • 15-0320-22622-CV MN DFL v MN Senate Republican Caucus et al
    February 27, 2012 - Pursuant to the Notice of and Order for Prehearing Conference IT IS ORDERED: That this matter is scheduled for a prehearing conference to be held at the Office of Administrative Hearings on at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 29, 2012. That the Respondents shall file a response to the Complaint by Friday, March 16, 2012. That, should the Respondents wish to assert the privilege provided them under Minn. Stat. § 3.16, they shall notify the Administrative Law Judge in writing by Friday, March 16, 2012. The Administrative Law Judge has now reviewed the Amended Complaint and attached exhibits, and has determined that the Amended Complaint sets forth a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.04, but fails to set forth prima facie violations of Minn. Stat. § 211B.09. This determination is described in more detail in the attached Memorandum. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT: The Complainant’s claim under § 211B.09 is dismissed without prejudice; and the Complainant’s claim under § 211B.04 will be scheduled for a prehearing conference and evidentiary hearing to be held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
  • 16-1901-22012-2 Ken B. Peterson, Commissioner, Department of Labor and Industry, State of Minnesota, Complainant, vs. W.B. Duluth Storage, LLC, n/k/a Riverland Ag, Respondent
    February 24, 2012 - This is an appeal of a Citation issued to Riverland Ag by MnOSHA for violating standards set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1910. The Citation alleges several violations, including failure to have fall protection for employees walking on top of railcars at Riverland Ag’s Duluth Harbor elevator facility. Riverland Ag maintains that its facility is a “marine terminal” for purposes of OSHA regulations and, as such, is governed exclusively by the standards set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1917. It asserts that MnOSHA issued the § 1910 violations in error and that the Citation must be dismissed. The Department contends that the Respondent’s facility does not meet the definition of a marine terminal and that the standards contained in Part 1910 do apply to its worksite operations. The Department asserts that the Citation was properly issued and that this matter should proceed to a hearing on the merits. Both parties have moved for summary disposition.
  • 40-2500-22485-2 In the Matter of the Application for a HVTL Route Permit for the Little Falls 115kv Transmission Project
    February 24, 2012 - This proceeding began on April 4, 2011, when the applicants, Great River Energy (“GRE”) and Minnesota Power (“MP”) (collectively the “Applicants”) filed a written notice with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (“Commission” or “MPUC”) of their intent to submit an application for a High Voltage Transmission Line (“HVTL”) Route Permit for the Little Falls 115kV Transmission Line project (“Project”).
  • 16-1005-22175-2 In the Matter of Modify My Loan US, LLC; Philip Domek; Mark Abdel; Maria Domek; and Richard Steele
    February 24, 2012 - Should the Commissioner take disciplinary action against Respondent Richard Steele pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 58.14 (2010)?
  • 119-1800-22527-2 In the Matter of the Revocation of the Family Child Care License of Stacy Wisemore
    February 24, 2012 - 1. Did the Department demonstrate reasonable cause that sanctions should be imposed upon Ms. Wisemore’s family day care license? 2. If the Department demonstrated reasonable cause to show that sanctions should be imposed upon Ms. Wiseman’s family day care license, did Ms. Wiseman show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she was in compliance with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements? 3. If the Department demonstrated reasonable cause to show that sanctions should be imposed and if Ms. Wisemore failed to show that she was in compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements, did Ms. Wisemore meet her burden of proof by submitting sufficient information to warrant setting aside her disqualification? 4. If regulatory discipline is appropriate, what sanctions should be imposed? The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Department did establish reasonable cause for revocation of the family day care license; that Ms. Wisemore did not establish full compliance with the requirements of her license; that Ms. Wisemore did not submit sufficient information to warrant setting aside her disqualification; and that revocation of her license is the most appropriate regulatory sanction in this instance.
  • 3-1800-22440-2 In the Matter of the Order of Conditional License and Order to Forfeit a Fine Imposed Against the Family Child Care License of Karen Rice
    February 22, 2012 - Should the family child care license of Karen Rice be made conditional, and should she be fined in the amount of $800 for (1) operating in violation of capacity and age distribution limits; (2) failing to submit background studies on two substitute caregivers; and (3) failing to ensure that the substitute caregivers received training on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and Shaken Baby Syndrome? The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the conditional license and fine are appropriate and should be affirmed. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Human Services AFFIRM the Order to Forfeit a Fine and the Order of Conditional License.
Pages:  1 - 2 - 3  Next