 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Blom v. Pflughoeft12/13/2005
nt failed to serve the expert-review affidavit either with the pleadings or within the 60-day demand period. And the record contains a September 9, 2004 letter from respondent's counsel to appellant's counsel, acknowledging service of the complaint, stating that the required expert affidavit was not included, and demanding that the deficiency be cured within the statutory time frame or respondent would "obtain the mandatory dismissal provided by law." Notwithstanding this demand, appellant did not serve the affidavit until November 18, 2004, 70 days after the notice of demand and 10 days past the statutory time allowed. Moreover, as emphasized by the district court in denying appellant's request for relief, appellant failed to ask the court for an extension or modification of the affidavit requirement any time within the 60-day demand period.
The only explanation provided by appellant for missing the statutory deadline involved the time it took to secure an expert. Appellant's counsel claims that he found a qualified expert before serving the complaint but subsequently learned that the expert was no longer willing to render an opinion. He states that he missed the deadline because it took additional time to find a new expert. On these facts, we cannot say the district court erred in not granting an extension to appellant. If difficulty in securing an expert was a sufficient basis for securing an extension, the statutory deadlines would be rendered meaningless.
As cited above, the statute requires mandatory dismissal for failing to serve the affidavit of expert review within 60 days of demand. And appellate courts have generally required strict adherence to statutory time limits for submitting expert affidavits in malpractice actions. See, e.g., Anderson v. Rengachary, 608 N.W.2d 843, 849-50 (Minn. 2000) (affirming district court's dismissal of medical malpractice action when plaintiff failed to submit expert-identification affidavit within 180-day time period and contents of affidavit eventually filed did not meet requirements of statute); Moen v. Mikhail, 454 N.W.2d 422, 422 (Minn. 1990) (holding that no reasonable excuse was provided when expert-identification affidavit was furnished late in medical-malpractice action).
On this record we cannot say the district court erred in dismissing appellant's claim with prejudice based on appellant's failure to file an expert-review affidavit within the statutory period.
Affirmed.
|