Jennifer L. DeCook, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Olmsted Medical Center, Inc., Brenda J. Hanson, R.N., and Darlene M. Pratt, R.N., Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Kenneth M. Palmer, M.D., Jack F. Perrone, M.D., Kimberly McKeon, M.D., and Ashley Morrow, R.N.
875 N.W.2d 263
| Minn. | 2016Background
- Baby born at Olmsted Medical Center in 2010; DeCooks later pursued medical-malpractice suit and retained two attorneys, one licensed in Minnesota (Offutt) and one only in Maryland (Thronson).
- DeCooks emailed summons and complaint to Olmsted’s compliance officer, Barbara Graham, on Jan. 14, 2014; the papers bore only Thronson’s handwritten signature though Offutt’s name was printed in the signature block.
- Graham returned a signed acknowledgement accepting service on behalf of the Medical Center and six individual defendants (including three physicians and three nurses); she also told the DeCooks’ attorneys she was authorized to accept service by email for those individuals.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for insufficient process (signature defect) and insufficient service; plaintiffs then appended Offutt’s signature and re-served; some individual defendants (two nurses) were personally served by sheriff later.
- District court allowed amendment to cure the signature defect and denied dismissal for Medical Center and two nurses but dismissed remaining individual defendants for insufficient service; parties appealed and the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a summons and complaint signed only by an out-of-state attorney are void nullities | DeCooks: defect is curable; rules allow amendment and prompt correction satisfies Rule 11 | Defendants: signature by non‑Minnesota lawyer voids process and deprives court of jurisdiction | Court: Defective but not void; district court may allow amendment under Rules 4.07 and 11.01 |
| Standard for curing signature defects on process | DeCooks: no special test beyond Rule 11 prompt-correction; amendment serves justice | Defendants: stricter test (Save Our Creeks) should bar amendment where prejudice exists | Court: no new test; apply existing rules (4.07, 11.01, 15.01); no abuse of discretion here because defect promptly cured and no substantial prejudice |
| Whether emailed service to compliance officer constituted effective service on individual defendants | DeCooks: Graham had authority and defendants consented to alternative/email service; her signed acknowledgment is evidence | Defendants: no written/electronic authorization by each defendant; agency law requires actual authority; Rule 4.05/3.01(b) not satisfied | Court: Plaintiffs produced evidence of agreement/authorization; burden shifted to defendants to rebut; defendants produced no contrary evidence; dismissal for insufficient service was error |
| Role of agency/apparent authority in service-of-process context | DeCooks: Graham’s role, emails, and signed acknowledgement support reasonable inference of authority | Defendants: apparent authority alone is insufficient; need actual authority or signed writing by defendant | Court: Apparent authority insufficient generally, but because plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of agreement, defendants bore burden to disprove actual authority and did not do so; thus service stood |
Key Cases Cited
- Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598 (Minn. 2014) (standards of review for rule/statute interpretation)
- Nelson v. Glenwood Hills Hosps., 240 Minn. 505 (Minn. 1953) (liberal view of jurisdictional rules; allow amendment to avoid dismissal on technical grounds)
- Save Our Creeks v. City of Brooklyn Park, 699 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 2005) (approach to amendment and whether signature defects are cureable)
- Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757 (U.S. 2001) (signature defects on appeal documents are curable under rules allowing correction)
- Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith, 754 N.W.2d 377 (Minn. 2008) (plaintiff must submit evidence of service to shift burden; once submitted defendant must prove service improper)
- Holmen v. Miller, 296 Minn. 99 (Minn. 1973) (affidavit of service can shift burden to defendant even if underlying assertion is unsupported)
- Tullis v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 570 N.W.2d 309 (Minn. 1997) (apparent authority of employee to accept service is generally insufficient; need actual or implied authority established by principal’s dealings)
- Francis v. Knerr, 149 Minn. 122 (Minn. 1921) (distinguishable older precedent where misrepresentations by out‑of‑state attorney made summons void)