If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DEBRA B. FORD, UNPUBLISHED June 20, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellant, 12:09 PM v No. 371805 Calhoun Circuit Court CITY OF MARSHALL, BAILEY EXCAVATING, LC No. 2020-000348-NO INC., LIBERTA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, doing business as CIOFFI & SON CONSTRUCTION, and GIVE-EM A BRAKE SAFETY, LLC, Defendants, and CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and REDFORD and MARIANI, JJ. BOONSTRA, P.J. (concurring). I fully concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to offer additional reasons to affirm the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant Consumers Energy Company. Plaintiff continues to advance the argument that her claim against Consumers sounded in ordinary negligence. But whether plaintiff’s claim sounds in negligence or in premises liability is determined by considering the plaintiff's complaint as a whole, regardless of the labels attached to the allegations by the plaintiff. Jeffrey-Moise v Williamsburg Towne Houses Coop, Inc, 336 Mich App 616, 625; 971 NW2d 716 (2012).. And the nature of a claim (as either premises liability or ordinary negligence) is generally determined by the nature of the hazard itself. As we held in Ford -1- v City of Marshall, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued January 13, 2022 (Docket No. 355541) (Ford I), p 4: On appeal, plaintiff argues that her claim sounded in ordinary negligence rather than premises liability because Consumers lacked possession and control of the sidewalk on the date of plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit. As already noted, the question of whether a claim sounds in premises liability or ordinary negligence hinges on the nature of the hazard. Buhalis, 296 Mich App at 692.[1] . . . [W]hether Consumers had possession and control of the sidewalk had no bearing on the nature of plaintiff’s claim, i.e., whether it sounded in ordinary negligence or premises liability. This Court has held that, in certain situations, a contractor whose negligent workmanship creates a hazardous condition on the land may be held liable not only to its contractee, but also in negligence to third parties who later incur foreseeable harm upon encountering the hazard. See Kapalczynski v Globe Construction Co, 19 Mich App 396, 403 n 10; 172 NW2d 852 (1969) (citing 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 385, p 293); Feaster v Hous, 137 Mich App 783, 789; 359 NW2d 219 (1984). This potential for liability arises after the contracted-for work has been completed and accepted by the premises possessor, and is based on the contractor’s negligent performance of a contractual duty. See Feaster, 137 Mich App at 789. By contrast, contractors who are currently engaged in contractual duties with respect to the land on behalf of the premises possessor/owner are “subject to the same liability, and enjoy[] the same freedom from liability, as though [they] were the possessor[s] of the land . . . .” Finazzo v Fire Equipment Co, 323 Mich App 620, 626; 918 NW2d 200 (2018).2 Effectively, the premises possessor has “loaned” possessory rights to the contractor. Id. at 627-628, citing Orel v Uni-Rak Sales, Co, Inc, 454 Mich 564, 567 n 2; 563 NW2d 241 (1997) and Quinlivan v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, Inc, 395 Mich 244, 269; 235 NW2d 732 (1972) (“This ‘loaning’ gives a quantum of ‘control and possession’ to another party.”). This Court in Finazzo noted that “our Supreme Court has explicitly recognized the principles underlying the rule set forth in 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, §384, p 289,” which provides: One who on behalf of the possessor of land erects a structure or creates any other condition on the land is subject to the same liability, and enjoys the same freedom from liability, as though he were the possessor of the land, for physical harm caused to others upon and outside of the land by the dangerous character of the structure 1 Buhalis held that “If the plaintiff’s injury arose from an allegedly dangerous condition on the land, the action sounds in premises liability rather than ordinary negligence; this is true even when the plaintiff alleges that the premises possessor created the condition giving rise to the pla

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA FILED FRANK MAYER, June 27, 2025 Claimant Below, Petitioner ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA v.) No. 24-ICA-462 (JCN: 2023021874) CITY OF CLARKSBURG, Employer Below, Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Frank Mayer appeals the October 30, 2024, order of the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board”). Respondent City of Clarksburg (“Clarksburg”) filed a response.1 Mr. Mayer did not reply. The issue on appeal is whether the Board erred in affirming the claim administrator’s order, which denied authorization for a right reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51- 11-4 (2024). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the Board’s order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. On May 24, 2023, while employed by Clarksburg, Mr. Mayer was mowing when he slipped and fell, landing with his leg bent underneath him. Mr. Mayer was seen at the United Hospital Center Emergency Room on the date of the injury, with a chief complaint of left knee pain and right shoulder pain. The assessment was a patella fracture and right shoulder strain. Mr. Mayer filed an Employees’ and Physicians’ Report of Occupational Injury dated May 24, 2023, indicating that he suffered an injury to his right shoulder and left leg when he was cutting grass on a hillside, and he fell when the bank gave way. The physician’s portion was signed at United Hospital Center and notes an occupational injury to the right shoulder and left knee. On May 26, 2023, Mr. Mayer was seen by William Dahl, M.D., who assessed a rupture of the left quadricep, a closed fracture of the left patella, and an injury of the right shoulder. Dr. Dahl opined that Mr. Mayer would benefit from surgical fixation of the left 1 Mr. Mayer is represented by J. Thomas Greene, Jr., Esq., and T. Colin Greene, Esq. Clarksburg is represented by James W. Heslep, Esq. 1 quadriceps rupture. The claim administrator issued an order dated May 31, 2023, holding the claim compensable for a strain of muscle, fascia, and tendon involving the right shoulder and upper arm; a strain of the left quadriceps; and a closed fracture of the left patella. Mr. Mayer was seen by Joshua Sykes, M.D., on November 27, 2023, for a follow up subsequent to a left quadriceps repair performed on June 1, 2023. Mr. Mayer reported a constant sharp, burning, and throbbing pain that he rated 5/10, and is worse with activity; that he had numbness and tingling when sitting; that his knee continued to swell; and that he was progressing with physical therapy. On December 28, 2023, Mr. Mayer underwent a CT of his right shoulder, which had the impression of severe acromioclavicular and mild glenohumeral osteoarthritis, retracted tears of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons, a suspected full thickness tear of the superior bundle of the subscapularis, and suspected extensive degenerative labral tearing. On January 23, 2024, Dr. Sykes assessed Mr. Mayer with status post tendon repair, rupture of left quadriceps, and right rotator cuff tear. Dr. Sykes noted that Mr. Mayer has had a work-related shoulder tear for over twenty years that had progressed from his previous MRI. On February 7, 2024, Mr. Mayer was evaluated by Kelly Agnew, M.D. Dr. Agnew noted that Mr. Mayer has a large retracted, irreparable right rotator cuff tear, that was documented in 2003, and that this tear was never repaired. Dr. Agnew opined that there was nothing on the recent CT scan with arthrogram of the right shoulder to suggest an acute injury and that all the changes were chronic. Dr. Agnew further opined that there was no evidence of a lingering strain and that the findings were expected from the chronic rotator cuff disruption. Dr. Agnew found that Mr. Mayer had reached maximum medical improvement from the shoulder and upper arm portion of his injury. Dr. Agnew noted that Mr. Mayer had been offered total shoulder arthroplasty by Dr. Sykes, and he opined that any such treatment would be for the underlying chronic pathology that dates back to 2003; and that arthroplasty could not possibly be ascribed to any identifiable injury involving the right shoulder from May 24, 2023. Mr. Mayer followed u

No. 517 June 4, 2025 175 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Kevin J. LEE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES, Respondent. Department of Consumer and Business Services INS190008; A182238 Argued and submitted April 1, 2025. Kevin J. Lee argued the cause and filed the briefs pro se. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jon Zunkel-deCoursey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Hellman, Judge. HELLMAN, J. Affirmed. 176 Lee v. DCBS HELLMAN, J. Petitioner, appearing pro se, seeks judicial review of a final order of the Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) that revoked his insurance licenses and assessed civil penalties. On judicial review, petitioner argues that the final order is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. “We review an agency’s order in a contested case for errors of law, ORS 183.482(8)(a), substantial evidence, ORS 183.482(8)(c), and substantial reason.” Dorn v. Teacher Standards and Practices Comm., 316 Or App 241, 243, 504 P3d 44 (2021). “Substantial evidence exists to support a find- ing of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482. “Substantial reason exists where the agency has articulated a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclu- sion that the agency draws from them.” Dorn, 316 Or App at 243 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Our review is restricted to the record.” Id. (citing ORS 183.482(7)); see also ORS 183.417(9) (defining “[t]he record in a contested case”). A detailed recitation of the facts would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. Petitioner held securities sales, insurance provider, and insurance consultant licenses in Oregon for several years. In 2017, the Federal Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) contacted petitioner to determine if he had violated any federal securities laws when he provided investment advice to his former neigh- bors. In 2018, petitioner filed a resident insurance license renewal application with the state and represented that he had not “been named or involved as a party in an adminis- trative proceeding, including FINRA sanction.” DCBS sub- sequently alleged that petitioner “act[ed] as a state invest- ment adviser in Oregon without a state investment license,” provided “misleading information” on his insurance license applications by not disclosing the FINRA investigation, and that he engaged in “fraudulent, coercive, or dishonest prac- tices.” At the contested hearing, the daughter of petitioner’s former neighbors, petitioner, and a DCBS financial enforce- ment officer testified, and the administrative law judge (ALJ) received into evidence numerous exhibits offered by Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 175 (2025) 177 each party. The ALJ ruled in favor of DCBS and issued a proposed order. DCBS adopted the ALJ’s proposed order as the final order. We have reviewed each of petitioner’s 18 separate arguments concerning the final order and conclude that petitioner presents no basis to reverse. Many of petitioner’s arguments dispute DCBS’s interpretation of the facts, but we do not reweigh evidence on appeal. See Gaylord v. DMV, 283 Or App 811, 822, 391 P3d 900 (2017) (“When in a review role, a court does not review for the better evidence.”). Many of petitioner’s arguments also depend on his testimony— which DCBS found not credible—and we do not revisit cred- ibility on appeal. See id. (“A substantial evidence review does not entail or permit the reviewing tribunal to reweigh or to assess the credibility of the evidence that was presented to the fact-finding body.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)) And petitioner’s arguments do not establish that DCBS committed any legal error in its analysis. In sum, substan- tial evidence supports DBCS’s findings of fact, and the order provides substantial reason for its conclusions. Petitioner has not demonstrated any legal error on DCBS’s part. Affirmed.

30 June 4, 2025 No. 484 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Richard GRIFFITH and Reta Griffith, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Respondents, v. PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, Defendant-Respondent Cross-Appellant, and ALPINE ABATEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant. Wallowa County Circuit Court 22CV10452; A181951 Wes Williams, Judge. On appellants’ petition for reconsideration filed March 28, 2025, and respondent’s response filed April 2, 2025. Opinion filed March 19, 2025. 339 Or App 40, 566 P3d 1235 (2025). Kelly Vance for petition. Thomas M. Christ and Sussman Shank LLP for response. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. TOOKEY, P. J. Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified. Cite as 341 Or App 30 (2025) 31 TOOKEY, P. J. Plaintiffs petition for reconsideration of our deci- sion in Griffith v. Property and Casualty Ins. Co. of Hartford, 339 Or App 40, 566 P3d 1235 (2025), asserting, among other reasons that we should reconsider our decision, that we “committed factual error in opining that all plaintiffs’ counsel did was file a complaint, which was contrary to the evidence.” Plaintiffs assert that “the trial court file shows far more activity than is depicted by the panel’s opinion.” We grant reconsideration, modify our previous opinion in two respects, and adhere to it as modified. First, in our opinion, we stated, “The complaint and Hartford’s answer were the only filings relating to Hartford in plaintiffs’ civil action. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs and Hartford executed a ‘Release and Settlement Agreement,’ under which the parties settled plaintiffs’ insurance and breach of contract claims ‘and all related controversies.’ ” Id. at 42. We modify those sentences to read, “After Vance filed the civil action, plaintiffs and Hartford executed a ‘Release and Settlement Agreement,’ under which the parties settled plaintiffs’ insurance and breach of contract claims ‘and all related controversies.’ ” Second, in our opinion, we stated, “Prior to the par- ties’ settlement and release, there was minimal litigation by plaintiffs’ counsel (the filing of a complaint) with respect to plaintiffs’ claims against Hartford.” Id. at 48. We mod- ify that sentence so that it reads, “Prior to the parties’ set- tlement and release, litigation by plaintiffs’ counsel with respect to plaintiffs’ claims against Hartford included fil- ing a complaint and amended complaint, filing a reply to Hartford’s affirmative defenses, filings related to summary judgment, and oral argument before the court.” We have also considered the other reasons that plaintiffs assert that we should reconsider our opinion and have determined that reconsideration is not warranted. Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

NUMBER 13-25-00325-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE DAISY FUENTES AND MCCOY CORPORATION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1 By petition for writ of mandamus, relators Daisy Fuentes and McCoy Corporation contend that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering them to produce “all primary and excess policies of insurance that may provide coverage in this case.” Relators have also filed a motion for emergency stay of the trial court’s order pending the resolution of this original proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).  A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain relief. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(f); 194.2(b)(7); In re Dana Corp., 138 S.W.3d 298, 304 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for emergency stay. L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice Delivered and filed on the 17th day of June, 2025. 2