When "the record is barren of material necessary for an understanding of the issues," an appeal should be dismissed. It is elementary that a party seeking review has a duty to see that the appellate court is presented with a record which is sufficient to show the alleged errors and all matters necessary to consider the questions presented.
#KUBES DENTAL CARE TRIAL#
Included in the record on appeal is a transcript of the hearing on the attorney fees motion, but not of the trial itself. Burrell argues that this appeal should be dismissed because Kubes failed to provide an adequate record for review. Kubes appeals the award of attorney fees.ġ. Costs were denied because there was no supporting evidence. After adjusting downward the number of hours the attorneys claimed were reasonably spent on the litigation (15 hours from Cooper's claim and 30 hours from Hughes's total) the trial court awarded attorney fees of $26,400. At the hearing, Burrell conceded that eight hours of time spent on a failed motion to amend the complaint should be deducted. The jury awarded Burrell $2,200 for embarrassment and emotional distress and $12,480 for loss of earnings.īurrell moved for attorney fees of $36,700 and costs of $1,418.04, based on 77 hours of work by Cooper at a rate of $200 per hour and 142 hours of work by Hughes at $150 per hour. By special verdict, the jury found that Kubes violated the whistleblower statute, but that Burrell was not a victim of racial discrimination. Two attorneys-Patrick Hughes and Stephen Cooper-represented Burrell at trial. § 181.933 and it was dismissed.Ī five-day jury trial on the remaining two claims was held in June 1995. Burrell withdrew the claim of violation of Minn.
The trial court granted the motion with respect to the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract. § 181.933 (1992), which requires an employer to provide in writing a reason for terminating an employee, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) racial discrimination in violation of Minn. On July 1, 1992, Kubes told Burrell that her employment was just not working out and that she was terminated.īurrell filed a complaint, alleging (1) violation of the whistleblower statute, Minn. Burrell repeatedly objected to Kubes' use of the nonsterile syringe and questioned his practices. On June 29, 1992, Kubes gave a patient a shot using a syringe that had not been sterilized properly. Kubes employed Burrell as a dental assistant. Kubes Dental Care and dentist David Kubes (collectively Kubes) appeal the trial court's award of attorney fees to respondent Ora Lee Burrell.
0 kommentar(er)
