 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hemmerlin-Stewart v. Allina Hospitals & Clinics9/6/2005
er than mere conjecture." Bob Useldinger & Sons, Inc. v. Hangsleben, 505 N.W.2d 323, 328 (Minn. 1993).
Appellant has not presented substantial evidence that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Appellant has not provided any evidence that respondents even installed the CVL into her body. In fact, the medical records relating to appellant's 1989 surgery do not document the insertion or removal of a left subclavian catheter into or out of appellant's body. Further, although appellant contends that none of the eight other occasions in which she received inpatient or outpatient treatment required the installation of a CVL, she has not provided any evidence that the CVL was installed while she was under respondents' care. Appellant contends that the statute of limitations should be tolled because respondents did not tell her that the CVL existed in her body, but she does not provide any evidence that respondents fraudulently concealed this from her. The district court properly granted respondents' motions for summary judgment.
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.
|
|