 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Latta v. Miner11/8/2000
l 1999 specifically requesting the information required by Minn. Stat. §á145.682, subd. 4, Latta responded that "disclosures of expected testimony of experts will be supplied separately" but never supplied such disclosures. Dr. Fraley provided Latta with an extensive letter setting forth his opinions regarding the case on July 19, 1999, nearly two months before the 180-day deadline of September 13, 1999. But Latta did not have Dr. Fraley sign an affidavit presenting his opinions until November 23, 1999, nearly one month after Miner filed his motion to dismiss Latta's action. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Latta had no reasonable excuse for his failure to comply with the 180-day time limit or in denying Latta's rule 6.02 motion.
As the supreme court stated in Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., Dismissal is mandated under Minn. Stat. §á145.682, subd. 6, when the disclosure requirements are not met and while we certainly recognize that the statute may have harsh results in some cases, it cuts with a sharp but clean edge. Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., 599 N.W.2d 572, 578 (Minn. 1999).
Because Latta failed to provide the information required by section 145.682 within the 180-day time limit, and because the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to extend that time limit in response to Latta's rule 6.02 motion, the district court did not err in dismissing Latta's action with prejudice. In light of our affirmance of the dismissal with prejudice of Latta's action, we need not address the issue of summary judgment.
II. Constitutionality of Minn. Stat. §á145.682.
Latta argues that Minn. Stat. §á145.682 violates provisions of both the federal and Minnesota constitutions. This court may consider "only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it." Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (quotation omitted). It is not clear that Latta "presented" these issues to the district court. In Latta's supplemental memorandum in response to Miner's motion to dismiss, Latta stated that the statute violates the federal and Minnesota constitutions without citing to any provision of either constitution, providing any supporting authority, or providing any legal analysis in support of his contention. In fact, Latta conceded the deficiency of the memorandum, stating, "If this court reaches these constitutionality issues, [Latta] respectfully requests an opportunity to brief these issues further." Furthermore, the district court did not reach or consider these issues, and Latta did not raise them in any post-trial submission. Therefore, this issue is not properly before this court.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|