Legal Opinion

Firkus v. Harms

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 30, 2018No. A17-1088Published

1Opinion of the CourtJesson, Judge

Appellant Ann Firkus served her medical-malpractice complaint, and a little over a month later, respondent Dr. Dana Harms served his answer. Months passed. There were no additional pleadings, motions, or discovery. Approximately eight months after the complaint was served, Harms informed Firkus that the statutory 180-day period to file the necessary affidavit of expert identification had expired. The district court agreed and dismissed the case, rejecting Firkus's argument that the time period did not commence, or that even if it did, the failure to file the affidavit was excusable neglect.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Stroud v. Hennepin County Medical CenterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
  2. Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. CloudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
  3. Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
  4. Parker v. O'PHELANCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
  5. Jennifer L. DeCook, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Olmsted Medical Center, Inc., Brenda J. Hanson, R.N., and Darlene M. Pratt, R.N., Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Kenneth M. Palmer, M.D., Jack F. Perrone, M.D., Kimberly McKeon, M.D., and Ashley Morrow, R.N.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API