Latta v. Miner11/8/2000
Petition for review denied January 16, 2001.
JAMES W. LATTA,
APPELLANT,
v.
DAN MINER, ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS.
Mille Lacs County District Court File No. C699324
Kevin S. Carpenter, Office of Kevin Carpenter, 204 Midsota Center, 3701 12th Street North, St. Cloud, MN 56303 (for appellant) Rebecca Egge Moos, Shalanda D. Ballard, Bassford, Lockhart, Truesdell & Briggs, P.A., 3550 Multifoods Tower, 33 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondents)
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge, Peterson Judge, and Willis Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Willis, Judge
Affirmed
Willis, Judge
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant argues that the district court erred in dismissing his medical malpractice action and in granting summary judgment to respondent. Because we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant's complaint, we affirm.
FACTS
In April 1997, appellant James W. Latta sought medical treatment from respondent Dan Miner, a physician's assistant, because Latta was concerned that he had testicular cancer. Miner concluded that Latta had an infection and prescribed antibiotics. In August 1997, Latta, complaining of pain, went to the emergency room of a hospital in St. Cloud, where he was diagnosed with testicular cancer.
In March 1999, Latta served Miner with a summons and complaint alleging medical malpractice. Miner moved for dismissal with prejudice for failure to provide the affidavits required under Minn. Stat. § 145.682 (1998), or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The district court granted Miner's "motion to dismiss and for summary judgment." Latta appeals.
DECISION
I. Motion to Dismiss.
Minn. Stat. §á145.682 requires that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action must timely serve on the defendant certain expert-opinion information regarding the merits of the case. Minn. Stat. §á145.682, subd. 2; see Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Med. Ctr., 457 N.W.2d 188, 190-91 (Minn. 1990). Absent an abuse of the district court's discretion, we affirm the dismissal of an action for failure to comply with section 145.682. Haile v. Sutherland, 598 N.W.2d 424, 426 (Minn. App. 1999).
Section 145.682 requires that an "affidavit of expert review" must accompany a summons and complaint alleging medical malpractice when it is served on the defendant. Minn. Stat. §á145.682, subds. 2, 3. This affidavit, authored by the plaintiff's attorney, must state that the attorney has reviewed the facts of the case with a qualified expert and that in the expert's opinion (1) the defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care and (2) deviation from that standard of care caused injury to the plaintiff. Id., subd. 3. The parties here agree that Latta properly served the affidavit of expert review.
Section 145.682 also requires a plaintiff to provide an affidavit that sets forth "specific details" concerning the plaintiff's experts' expected testimony, including the applicable standard of care, the acts or omissions that [the plaintiff] allege violated the standard of care, and an outline of the chain of causation that allegedly resulted in [the plaintiff's claimed injury ]. Sorenson, 457 N.W.2d at 193; see Minn. Stat. §á145.682, subds. 2, 4.
In place of this affidavit, a party may provide the required information in answers to interrogatories. Id., subd. 4. When a plaintiff
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|