 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bielke v. Fairview-University Medical Ceneter9/30/2003
he answer entirely to his attorney. Id. at 271, 128 N.W.2d at 750-51. In Charson v. Temple Israel, the district court dismissed the plaintiff's contract claim for failure to file the summons and complaint with the court. 419 N.W.2d 488, 489 (Minn. 1988). The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the failure to file the summons and complaint was the result of excusable neglect under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. Id. at 491. The court stated that, while the neglect of the plaintiff's attorney was inexcusable, the plaintiff was not personally chargeable with inexcusable neglect and courts are loath to punish innocent clients for their counsel's neglect. Id. In Nguyen v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., the district court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff because the defendant failed to timely file a request for a trial de novo. 558 N.W.2d 487, 488 (Minn. 1997). The supreme court reversed, holding that the failure to file the request was excusable neglect under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 and that the failure was inadvertent and merely the result of an oversight. Id. at 491. The court also noted the "strong policy favoring the granting of relief when judgment is entered through no fault of the client." Id.
In an affidavit, appellant's counsel admits that the failure to serve the affidavits of expert identification in a timely manner was an "oversight on part." He states that it has been his practice to obtain the depositions of the defendants and to provide the deposition transcripts to his expert witnesses before finalizing and serving affidavits of expert identification. Appellant's counsel's experience has been that defense counsel routinely stipulate to time extensions when depositions for defendants are delayed at their request. Nevertheless, appellant's counsel concedes that he was neglectful in not moving for a time extension when it became clear that some of the depositions in this case would not occur until after the 180-day deadline had passed.
We recognize that an abuse-of-discretion standard on review is a high one to overcome. But on this record, we conclude that appellant's willingness to reschedule the depositions of the nurses and Dr. Sestero to a time on or after the 180-day deadline, in order to accommodate their scheduling conflicts, was sufficient to establish a reasonable excuse for not filing the affidavits of expert review within the 180-day timeline. It clearly would have been preferable to move for extension of the deadline before August 12. Had that occurred, most likely the district court would have granted appellant's motion. But appellant's counsel relied on his past practice in a specialty area where a limited number of attorneys practice. And the problem arose due to his willingness to accommodate respondent's witnesses.
Given the district court's specific findings of the reasonable merits of appellant's claim, her due diligence once the failure to timely serve affidavits was discovered, and the lack of prejudice to respondent, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by denying appellant's motion for a time extension based on excusable neglect and by granting respondent's motion to dismiss. A finding of excusable neglect is also supported by the fact that appellant's counsel was solely responsible for the procedural error in this case, and that Minnesota courts are wary of punishing an innocent client for their counsel's neglect. See Charon, 419 N.W.2d at 491 (stating that courts are ordinarily loath to punish an innocent client for mistakes that are purely that of counsel).
Reversed and remanded.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|