 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Uhde v. Brook West Chiropractic Clinic11/22/2005
This appeal involves a medical malpractice action brought by appellant Sharyl Uhde after she received chiropractic treatment from respondent Patrick A. Gallagher at his clinic, respondent Brook West Chiropractic Clinic. Appellant claimed that Gallagher's treatment resulted in an arterial tear in her neck that caused her to suffer many strokes. Appellant challenges the district court's decision granting respondents' motion for summary judgment, which was based on her failure to comply with the expert affidavit requirements of Minn. Stat. § 145.682 (2002). Because appellant failed to file the necessary medical expert affidavit within the statutorily prescribed time period, we conclude the district court did not err in granting summary judgment. We therefore affirm.
DECISION
Minnesota appellate courts review a district court's dismissal of a medical malpractice action for failure to comply with the statutory expert disclosure requirements under an abuse of discretion standard of review. Broehm v. Mayo Clinic Rochester, 690 N.W.2d 721, 725 (Minn. 2005). Within 180 days of filing a claim, a medical malpractice plaintiff must file a signed affidavit by an expert witness that sets forth a prima facie case. Minn. Stat. § 145.682, subds. 2, 4 (2002). If the plaintiff fails to provide the required expert affidavit, the defendant may move for a mandatory dismissal of the claim. Minn. Stat. § 145.682, subd. 6 (2002). By agreement of the parties or upon motion to the court "for good cause shown," the 180-day expert affidavit deadline may be extended. Id., subd. 4(b). Under Minnesota law, this provision "'must be read in conjunction with Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.02.'" Anderson v. Rengachary, 608 N.W.2d 843, 849 (Minn. 2000) (quoting Stern v. Dill, 442 N.W.2d 322, 324 (Minn. 1989)). The rule allows for extension of a statutory deadline "where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect." Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.02.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err by dismissing appellant's case under Minn. Stat. § 145.682. The primary purpose of this statute is to prevent nuisance lawsuits at an early stage in the proceedings and to ensure that the party who initiates a medical malpractice claim can establish a prima facie case. Broehm, 690 N.W.2d at 725; Maudsley v. Pederson, 676 N.W.2d 8, 12 (Minn. App. 2004). "So as not to undermine the legislative aim of expert review and disclosure, we have stressed that plaintiffs must adhere to strict compliance with the requirement of Minn. Stat. § 145.682." Broem, 690 N.W.2d at 726. While a district court has discretion to extend the time period for serving an expert witness affidavit, it properly denies a motion for such an extension where the plaintiff fails to show a reasonable excuse for failure to provide the affidavit. Broehm, 690 N.W.2d at 727-28; see also Bellecourt v. United States, 784 F. Supp. 623, 637 (D. Minn. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to provide expert witness affidavit, when plaintiff was aware of expert affidavit requirement but submitted it 11 months beyond the statutory deadline); Anderson, 608 N.W.2d at 850 (attorney's inadvertence in missing statutory deadline for serving expert witness affidavit in medical malpractice action did not excuse plaintiff from statutory requirement).
The procedural posture of this case admittedly does not lend itself to simple application of the statute. After appellant initiated her medical malpractice action in July 1999, respondents moved for and were granted dismissal of the case on statute of limitations grounds within 98 days. Upon further appeal, this court reversed and remanded on the sole issue of whether the statute of limitations
Page 1 2 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|