Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rademacher v. Tountas

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 9, 1991No. C4-91-479Published

1DissentShort, Judge

I respectfully dissent because I believe occupational therapists are “health care professionals” within the meaning of the two-year statute of limitations. See Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1) (1988). The statute is ambiguous because it refers to the definitions of “professional” and “health care” but does not define the entire term “health care professional.” See Kaiser v. Memorial Blood Center of Minneapolis, Inc., 721 F.Supp. 1073, 1075 n. 2 (D.Minn.1989); see also Minn.Stat. § 145.61, subds. 2, 4 (1988). Merely combining these two definitions makes little sense and does not clearly delineate who…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Kaiser v. Memorial Blood Center of Minneapolis, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1989
  2. Tackleson v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API