Legal Opinion · Dissent

Swanson v. Brewster

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 30, 2010No. A08-806Published

1DissentMeyer, Justice

I respectfully dissent. Contrary to our longstanding rules of statutory interpretation that require a strict construction of statutes in abrogation of the common law, the majority adopts an expansive interpretation of the word “payments” in the collateral-source statute, MinmStat. § 548.251 (2008), which extends beyond the plain meaning to a negotiated discount between the plaintiffs insurance company and his medical providers. I interpret “payments” according to its plain and ordinary meaning to exclude the amount of a write-off that no one has paid. Thus, I would hold that the injured…

2Cases cited46 opinions

  1. Robinson v. BatesOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Bozeman v. StateSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2004
  3. Moorhead v. Crozer Chester Medical CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  4. Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  5. Oden v. Chemung County Industrial Development AgencyNew York Court of Appeals · 1995

41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API