Legal Opinion

Blohm v. Minneapolis Urological Surgeons, P.A.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 22, 1989No. C6-88-2515PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SIMONETT, Justice.

This case raises questions about the application of Minn.Stat. § 595.02, subd. 5 (1988), which provides, in medical malpractice actions, for defense counsel to have an “informal discussion” with physicians who have treated plaintiff.

Plaintiff Roger Blohm has sued doctors Kieley and Price, 1 alleging negligent treatment (following cancer surgery) resulting in circulation problems in the lower extremities and the eventual amputation of both legs. The complaint alleges that after treatment for several years by the defen dant doctors, Mr. Blohm had gone to the hospital emergency…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Wenninger v. MuesingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  2. Weaver v. MannDistrict Court, D. North Dakota · 1981
  3. Blohm v. Minneapolis Urological Surgeons, P.A.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Brandt v. Medical Defense AssociatesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1993
  2. Filz v. Mayo FoundationDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1991
  3. Samms v. District Court, Fourth Judicial District of the State of ColoradoSupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
  4. Gobuty v. KavanaghDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1992
  5. Younggren v. YounggrenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996

10 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