 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Blom v. Pflughoeft12/13/2005
In this appeal from summary judgment in a legal malpractice action, appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of the action with prejudice based on her failure to file the expert-review affidavit within the time period required by Minn. Stat. § 544.42, subds. 2(1), 3 (2004). We affirm.
DECISION
On appeal from summary judgment, this court considers whether genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the district court erred in applying the law. Offerdahl v. Univ. of Minn. Hosps. & Clinics, 426 N.W.2d 425, 427 (Minn. 1988). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve any doubt as to the existence of a material fact against the moving party. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993). We review a district court's determination as to whether a plaintiff failed to comply with mandatory expert-witness disclosure requirements for abuse of discretion. Broehm v. Mayo Clinic Rochester, 690 N.W.2d 721, 725 (Minn. 2005); Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Med. Ctr., 457 N.W.2d 188, 190 (Minn. 1990). The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, reviewable de novo. Sorenson, 457 N.W.2d at 190.
Negligence actions against professionals, including attorneys, must comply with expert-disclosure requirements under Minn. Stat. § 544.42, subd. 2 (2004). See Middle River-Snake River Watershed Dist. v. Dennis Drewes, Inc., 692 N.W.2d 87, 90-91 (Minn. App. 2005) (discussing expert-affidavit requirements in negligence action against engineer). The expert-review provisions of Minn. Stat. § 544.42 are similar to those contained in Minn. Stat. § 145.682 (2004), the medical-malpractice expert-affidavit statute. See Middle River, 692 N.W.2d at 91 (discussing parallel reasoning used in construing requirements of Minn. Stat. § 145.682 and Minn. Stat. § 544.42 in context of engineering-malpractice claim); see also House v. Kelbel, 105 F. Supp.2d 1045, 1051 (D. Minn. 2000) (stating that the Minnesota legislature "used § 145.682 as a blueprint in drafting the language of § 544.42").
The affidavit statute for professional, non-medical malpractice actions requires, subject to certain exceptions inapplicable here, that a plaintiff serve two expert-witness disclosure affidavits on an adverse party. Minn. Stat. § 544.42, subd. 2. The first, an affidavit of expert review, must establish that an expert reviewed the case, leading to the opinion that the defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care and that action caused plaintiff's injury . Id., subds. 2(1), 3(a)(1). The second, the expert-identification affidavit, identifies the expert witnesses and provides the substance of the experts' opinions and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. Id., subds. 2(2), 4(a). It is the affidavit of expert review that is at issue here.
The affidavit of expert review must generally be served with the pleadings. Id., subd. 2(1). Failure to serve this affidavit within 60 days after demand "results, upon motion, in mandatory dismissal of each cause of action . . . as to which expert testimony is necessary to establish a prima facie case." Id., subd. 6(a). The requirements for this affidavit "may be waived or modified if the court . . . determines, upon an application served with commencement of the action, that good cause exists for not requiring the certification." Id., subd. 3(c).
Here the district court dismissed appellant's action, concluding that appellant failed to establish (1) a reasonable excuse for failing to meet the statutory deadline; and (2) that she proceeded with due diligence after respondents demanded strict adherence to the time limits. We agree.
It is undisputed that appella
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.
|
|