 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Crary v. Dr. Hoffman and Associates3/26/2002
>
Because of these factors, Crary's failure to secure the signatures of his experts, under oath, on the interrogatory responses becomes more than just a technical failure under Minn. Stat. § 145.682. Only Crary signed the responses. Crary clearly is not qualified to testify as to the appropriate standard of care regarding Dr. Hoffman's informing and disclosing the potential risks and consequences of the procedure, however. Also, Crary is not qualified to make the final causal connection between his pain and the surgery itself. Crary needed an expert witness to supply these crucial pieces of the puzzle. None has ever done so. The technical failures become substantive considering the foundational requirements for the testimony offered and required under the statute.
Accordingly, Crary's submissions failed to meet the substantive requirements under the statute in addition to the procedural flaws the district court correctly cited. Crary failed to meet the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 145.682. The statute requires dismissal of his lawsuit. The district court did not abuse its discretion in so ruling.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|