C3-89-540 | Minn. | Apr 20, 1990

454 N.W.2d 422" date_filed="1990-04-20" court="Minn." case_name="Moen v. Mikhail">454 N.W.2d 422 (1990)

Gregory James MOEN, Respondent,
v.
Salma MIKHAIL, M.D., George E. Reisdorf, M.D., et al., petitioners, Appellants.

No. C3-89-540.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

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

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.

SIMONETT, Justice.

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" date_filed="1989-11-07" court="Minn. Ct. App." case_name="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" date_filed="1989-07-21" court="Minn." case_name="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.

© 2024 Midpage AI does not provide legal advice. By using midpage, you consent to our Terms and Conditions.