Molloy v. Meier

I concur in the court’s opinion with respect to parts I and III. However, I disagree with the court’s attempt to distinguish our relatively recent holding in Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758 (Minn.1993), to reach a different result based on the facts of this case. In Fa-bio, in the face of Justice Gardebring’s dissent, which I joined along with Justice Wahl, the court reiterated the longstanding rule that, in general, a cause of action for medical malpractice accrues *724when a physician ceases to treat a patient for a particular condition. Id. at 762; see also Grondahl v. Bulluck, 318 N.W.2d…