From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MOEN v. MIKHAIL

Supreme Court of Minnesota
May 10, 1990
454 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1990)

Summary

holding that no reasonable excuse was provided when expert-identification affidavit was furnished late in medical-malpractice action

Summary of this case from BLOM v. PFLUGHOEFT

Opinion

No. C3-89-540.

April 20, 1990. Rehearing Denied May 10, 1990.

Appeal from the District Court, Freeborn County, James L. Mork, J.

Robert R. Dunlap, Susan Scheffer, Dunlap, Finseth, Berudt Sandberg, P.A., Rochester, for George Reisdorf, et al.

Kenneth R. White, Farrish, Johnson Maschka, Mankato, for Salma Mikhail.

Evan H. Larson, Peter D. Plunkett, Warren F. Plunkett Assoc., Austin, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.


We granted the petitions of defendants Salma Mikhail and George E. Reisdorf to review a split decision of the court of appeals, the majority of which concluded that the trial court is vested with discretion to extend the time limitations contained in Minn.Stat. § 145.682 (1988) upon a showing of excusable neglect and that it abused that discretion in determining that plaintiff made no showing of excusable neglect. Moen v. Mikhail, 447 N.W.2d 462 (Minn.App. 1989). We reverse.

Here, the trial court improperly first concluded that it was without any discretion to extend the time limitations of section 145.682 in a medical malpractice action. See Stern v. Dill, 442 N.W.2d 322, 324 (Minn. 1989). However, our review of the record leads to our conclusion that Moen provided no reasonable excuse for his failure to provide the requisite affidavits in a timely fashion and that, therefore, he would not have been entitled to the requested extension. Summary judgment was properly awarded to the defendants.

Reversed.


Summaries of

MOEN v. MIKHAIL

Supreme Court of Minnesota
May 10, 1990
454 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1990)

holding that no reasonable excuse was provided when expert-identification affidavit was furnished late in medical-malpractice action

Summary of this case from BLOM v. PFLUGHOEFT

holding the plaintiff was not entitled to an extension of time where he did not provide a reasonable excuse for failing to meet the time deadlines

Summary of this case from Tousignant v. St. Louis County

explaining that a plaintiff with no reasonable excuse for not supplying the expert-witness disclosure is not entitled to a rule 6.02 extension

Summary of this case from Lewis v. North Memorial Medical Center
Case details for

MOEN v. MIKHAIL

Case Details

Full title:Gregory James MOEN, Respondent, v. Salma MIKHAIL, M.D., George E…

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: May 10, 1990

Citations

454 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1990)

Citing Cases

Tousignant v. St. Louis County

An extension of time to fulfill the requirements of section 145.682 is proper if the party has a reasonable…

Lewis v. North Memorial Medical Center

2000) (upholding the district court's dismissal of a medical-malpractice claim for failure to comply with…