Anita J. Howard v. Shelly R. Svoboda, M.D., 2017 Minn. LEXIS 54

Anita Howard underwent back surgery by Dr. Nagib in 2009 and later became paraplegic; she sued Dr. Svoboda, physician assistant Geisler, and the clinic for negligence but not Dr. Nagib.
Respondents sought an informal discussion with Dr. Nagib under Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 5; Howard initially authorized but limited the scope to Dr. Nagib’s own treatment and then revoked the authorization.
The district court compelled Howard to authorize the informal discussion but issued a protective order restricting questioning to Dr. Nagib’s own treatment; it expressly declined to rule on a separate injunction motion.
The parties held the informal discussion; Dr. Nagib volunteered a causation opinion beyond his own care. Later he testified similarly at trial; the jury found for Respondents.
Respondents appealed the district court’s protective order to the court of appeals as an interlocutory appeal under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(b); the court of appeals reversed the protective order.
The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review, focused on whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal; the Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision for lack of appellate jurisdiction and did not reach the statute’s merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s protective order was an appealable injunction under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(b)	Howard: the order was a protective order (not an injunction) and limited questioning to Dr. Nagib’s own treatment; not appealable as an injunction.	Respondents: Rule 103.03(b) covers orders that have the effect of injunctions even if not labeled as one.	Held: The protective order was not an injunction; Rule 103.03(b) did not confer jurisdiction.
Whether this Court should nonetheless review the court of appeals’ decision under Rule 105 or invoke Rule 102 to suspend rules and take jurisdiction	Howard: asked the Court to allow review under Rule 105 or to invoke Rule 102 for good cause.	Respondents asserted interlocutory appellate jurisdiction and sought other extraordinary relief (writ of prohibition) but did not pursue court of appeals’ denial.	Held: No good cause to invoke Rule 102; Rule 105 is for the court of appeals and was not invoked below. The Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction.
Whether the court of appeals’ decision should be vacated for lack of jurisdiction	Howard: the appellate court lacked jurisdiction, so its opinion should be vacated.	Respondents: proceeded with interlocutory appeal; court of appeals ruled on merits.	Held: The court of appeals lacked jurisdiction; its opinion is vacated.

City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge, 800 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 2011) (standard of review for jurisdictional questions)
Blohm v. Minneapolis Urological Surgeons, P.A., 449 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. 1989) (distinguishing informal discussions from formal discovery)
Swint v. Chambers Cty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35 (1995) (vacatur of court of appeals decision for lack of appellate jurisdiction)
McCullough & Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, 883 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 2016) (vacating court of appeals decision for lack of jurisdiction)
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271 (1988) (orders relating only to litigation conduct are ordinarily not appealable as injunctions)
Switz. Cheese Ass’n, Inc. v. E. Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23 (1966) (orders touching only pretrial procedure are not interlocutorily appealable)
Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981) (practical-effect test for injunctive character)
LeRoy v. Marquette Nat’l Bank of Minneapolis, 277 N.W.2d 351 (Minn. 1979) (invoking Rule 102 in exceptional procedural circumstances)
State v. Dahlin, 753 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. 2008) (reviewability of denial of writ of prohibition)
Int’l Prods. Corp. v. Koons, 325 F.2d 403 (2d Cir. 1963) (distinguishing injunctions granting substantive relief from routine procedural orders)