 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stodgell v. Erickson8/28/2001
ether the affidavit puts the defendants on notice of the proposed expert, his qualifications, and his medical opinions covering the areas of the applicable standard of care, negligence, and causation. Demgen, 621 N.W.2d at 265.
3. The Stodgells also contend that the district court improperly weighed evidence outside the affidavits and failed to accept the averments in the expert affidavits as true. Generally, a motion to dismiss should be evaluated on the pleadings, and if matters outside the pleadings are presented to and considered by the district court, the motion shall be treated as a rule 56 summary judgment motion. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.03. In the medical-malpractice context, we recently explained that it is improper for a district court to rely on rebuttal affidavits and discovery evidence when weighing and analyzing the adequacy of expert affidavits under Minn. Stat. ยง 145.682. Demgen, 621 N.W.2d at 266.
Here, the district court's recitation of the facts in the dismissal order appears to rely on discovery facts not generally considered under a rule 12 motion for dismissal. While it does not appear that outside evidence in this case ultimately played a role in the district court's legal analysis, we nonetheless point out of the differences between rule 12 dismissal and rule 56 summary judgment.
Reversed and remanded.
|