DNA's Client Stories

Perry vs. Navajo Nation Labor Commission:
This case involves the legality of our client's employment discharge under the Navajo Preference in Employment Act (NPEA).

After our client was discharged from employment, the client applied for services through the DNA Mexican Hat Office. Managing Attorney Edward Dobson determined that the employer had failed to follow its own employee handbook guidelines, in violation of the NPEA, and assisted our client in filing for pro se review before the Office of Navajo Labor Relations (ONLR). Eventually ONLR determined that it was unable to undertake the resolution of our client's complaint, and issued a right-to-sue letter. Mr. Dobson thereafter entered his appearance and filed a Petition on behalf of our client before the Navajo Nation Labor Commission (NNLC).

In responding to our Petition, the employer's response was drafted by a regular staff person, someone not licensed to practice law by the Navajo Nation Bar Association. Mr. Dobson filed a motion to strike the response because the author was practicing law without a license. The NNLC denied the motion. Mr. Dobson then filed a Petition For Writ Of Supervisory Control before the Navajo Nation Supreme Court, to resolve the matter of the unauthorized practice of law. The Court granted the Petition for Writ, and stayed the proceedings before the NNLC. The Court then requested additional briefing on the question of Navajo traditional law affecting the practice of law before Navajo administrative tribunals. Both sides filed additional briefs, after which the Court set the case for oral argument. Harvard Law School took an interest in the case, invited the Court to sit at Harvard to hear oral arguments, and the Court accepted. The last time that had occurred was for the Russell Means case in 1999.

Mr. Dobson developed and briefed the case from the start, and presented oral arguments before the Navajo Nation Supreme Court sitting at Harvard Law School on April 12th. The Court currently has the case under advisement.

UPDATE:
We have the Navajo Nation Supreme Court decision in the Perry case, argued at Harvard, and we won!

"The [Navajo Nation Labor] Commission shall not allow a non-licensed agent of a corporation to represent the corporation in any proceeding before the Commission." Permanent Writ of Superintending Control, Perry v. Navajo Nation Labor Commission, No. SC-CV-50-05 (Slip op., August 7, 2006).

DNA Flagstaff Office
In another case, a DNA Attorney represented our client a father to establish custody and visitation of his five year old son after Arizona Child Support Enforcement, through the Attorney General's Office, had filed child support proceedings against him. Our client was concerned that the mother's new boyfriend was abusing the child, and that the mother was neglecting him. The child's school claimed the son had been registered late for kindergarten, and then had excessive absences (which did not have any legal effect until 1st grade). The mother also did everything within her power to alienate the son from our client. DNA Attorney successfully represented our client in obtaining custody one-half of the time, which is quite workable since the parties both live in Flagstaff.

DNA's Attorney represented another client when the client's boyfriend of 13 years took the Parties' three children to an unknown address in Phoenix, after the Parties had separated, and refused to return the children to our client. When the children called our client, our client talked to the father and was told by him that he would not return the children and that his mother would instead be taking the children to Mexico. There had never been any paternity or custody orders entered, and the father was not listed on two of the children's birth certificates. After the client called the Flagstaff Office in a panic, DNA's Attorney assisted her in filing a pro se Petition for an Order of Protection based on the boyfriend's physical abuse of our client and the children throughout the relationship, alcohol and cocaine abuse, and driving under the influence with the children (DUI). The former boyfriend did not contest the Petition, presumably because of outstanding arrest warrants for DUI and domestic violence, and the Order of Protection was entered for our client and the children.

A DNA Staff Advocate represented a 29 year old Northern Arizona University (NAU) student in a Social Security Disability case. Our client suffered from a subarachnoid hemorrhage due to brain aneurysm rupture in May 2003. After surgery, the client suffered severe impairments including cognitive deficits; personality change; mild neurocognitive disorder; memory impairment; adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood and mild left-side weakness. The Social Security Administration (SSA) initially found that our client's condition had improved 10 months after surgery, and accordingly denied benefits.

After the client applied for services through the DNA Flagstaff Office, Our DNA Staff Advocate requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), she developed the SSA file with our client's medical records, and requested that extensive neurocognitive testing be performed. The ALJ referred our client for a consultative evaluation scheduled in August 2005. The psychologist's findings included that our client suffered from personality change due to cerebrovascular accident; mild neurocognitive disorder with impairment of memory and speed of information processing; adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, chronic and moderate; and distinct passive-aggressive personality features.

It was the psychologist's opinion that our client had marked limitation in his ability to understand and remember detailed instruction, carry out detailed instruction, interact appropriately with supervisors, and interact appropriately with co-workers. The client was moderately limited in his ability to understand, remember and carry out short, simple instructions; make judgments on simple work-related decisions; and respond appropriately to work pressures in an usual work setting.

Based on this consultative report the ALJ determined that an administrative hearing would not be as necessary, and that the record included sufficient information to make a determination. The ALJ determined that our client met an impairment listing under the Social Security regulations, and further determined, based on our client's residual functional capacity and vocational factors, that there were no jobs existing in significant numbers which he could perform. The ALJ therefore found that our client was disabled.

Our client was awarded Supplemental Security Income (SSI), back benefits from June 2003 to January, 2006 totaling $17,631 and monthly benefits at $603.00 beginning February 2006. Our client was also awarded Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) back benefits from November 2003 to December 2005 in the amount of $8,267.10 and monthly benefits in the amount of $322.00 beginning January 2006. The total back award is $25,898.10.

Our client was extremely happy, and should be graduating from NAU by the time his case comes up for review in one year.

DNA Farmington Office
In another matter, the Farmington Office obtained a financial settlement on a 7-year old pawn without receipts, records or pawn tickets, in a case that should have been dismissed for laches or the expiration of the limitations period. The Farmington Office originally accepted our client's case because it implicated the Pawn Act. The pawn of two antique belts was seven years ago, by our client's wife while our client was in prison. Upon his late release, our client filed a pro se action for return of the belts.

Although the pawn tickets were lost, the Farmington Office entered its appearance in the case since the Pawn Act would have still required the pawn shop to surrender the records weekly and, therefore, a record of the pawn should have been available in city records had the pawn shop owner complied with the Pawn Act at the time.

The Farmington Office defeated a motion to dismiss. As it turned out, however, the Pawn Act is not being enforced outside the Farmington municipal limits, which is the apparent reason why all pawn shops in San Juan County are located outside Farmington. Even if the Pawn Act was enforced, the Administrative Code only requires the City to keep records for 5 years.

This case had inherent weaknesses since the pawn occurred over seven years ago; our client did not have any receipts of any payments over those seven years; our client claimed to have made only sporadic payments; interest at 8% every month would have amounted to several thousand dollars alone; and even if the Farmington Office was able to prove the pawn, our client would only be entitled to retail value minus interest due. Nevertheless, on the eve of trial the opposing party, believing our client had a strong case, made a favorable settlement offer which our client accepted.

In a separate case the Farmington Office obtained a refund check from Hi-Country auto dealership within one day of the demand. Our Client went to the car dealer to purchase a standard Chevy Malibu advertised for $17,000, but left the car dealer with that same Malibu at a purchase price of $21,000. The Farmington Office sent an investigator to the car dealer to check the price, and thereafter wrote a strong demand letter. Hi-Country immediately refunded our client the difference in price.