Legal Opinion

Roemer v. Martin

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 19, 1989No. C5-87-2351PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SIMONETT, Justice.

We reverse the court of appeals in this medical malpractice case and reinstate the jury’s finding that the doctor’s negligence was. not a cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

In October 1981, plaintiff James D. Roemér injured his right thumb, and defendant David E. Martin performed surgery to repair the severed tendon. Subsequently, Mr. Roemer and his wife sued Dr. Martin and his clinic, claiming Dr. Martin had negligently injured the median nerve during the surgery. The jury found that Dr. Martin had been negligent but his negligence was not a cause of plaintiff’s injuries.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Flom v. FlomSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  2. Vanderweyst v. LangfordSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  3. Dyson v. SchmidtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
  4. Roman v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
  5. Bergemann v. Mutual Service Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1978

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
  2. Navarre v. South Washington County SchoolsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  3. Myers v. Hearth Technologies, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
  4. Navarre v. South Washington County SchoolsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
  5. Raze v. MuellerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999

11 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