Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Swang v. Hauser, 180 N.W.2d 187.

31 citing documents.

Heather Fitzgerald, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The supreme court has noted that the “policy reason” behind the termination - of-treatment rule “is that the patient must repose reliance upon [her] physician in the completion of the course of curative treatment, a relationship of trust which inhibits the patient’s ability to discover acts of omission or commission constituting malpractice.” Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306, 309, -90 (1970).
Broek v. Park Nicollet Health Services 660 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Broek v. Park Nicollet Health Services 660 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
This rule is predicated on the rationale that “the patient must repose reliance upon his physician in the completion of the course of curative treatment, a relationship of trust which inhibits the patient’s ability to discover acts of omission or commission constituting malpractice.” Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306, 309 , -90 (1970); see also Schmit v. Esser, 183 Minn. 354, 358-59 , 236 N.W.
Doyle v. Kuch 611 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Doyle v. Kuch 611 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306, 309 , -90 (1970).
Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson 583 N.W.2d 283 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson 583 N.W.2d 283 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306, 309 , -90 (1970).
Ciardelli v. Rindal 582 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1998
Ciardelli v. Rindal 582 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1998
A discrete act of negligence by a medical professional falls within the single act exception when “it was complete at [a] precise time [and] no continued course of treatment could either cure or relieve it.” Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306, 309
Bliss v. Stevens 544 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Bliss v. Stevens 544 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(quoting Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306, 309 , -90 (1970)), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Fabio v. Bellomo 504 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1993
Haberle v. Buchwald 480 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Haberle v. Buchwald 480 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
A “practical reason” for this termination of treatment rule is that “actionable treat *355 ment does not ordinarily consist of a single act or, even if it does, it is most difficult to determine the precise time of its occurrence.” Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306, 309
Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics 426 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 1988
Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics 426 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 1988
In Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306, 309 , we applied this “single act” exception, holding the plaintiffs’ claim for technical assault and battery stemming from allegedly unauthorized surgery was barred by the two-year statute of limitations despite the fact the physician-patient relationship continued within two years of com
Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics 411 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics 411 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Murray v. Fox, 300 Minn. 373, 376 , (explaining Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306 , ).
Koderick v. Snyder Bros. Drug, Inc. 413 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Koderick v. Snyder Bros. Drug, Inc. 413 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306, 309
Crenshaw v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 379 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Miller v. Mercy Medical Center 380 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Crenshaw v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 379 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306, 309 , -90 (1970).
Collins v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Collins v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306 , the supreme court stated: The 2-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice ordinarily does not commence to run until the termination of the treatment for which the physician is retained.
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe 291 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1980
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe 291 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1980
E. g., Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306 , Schmidt v. Esser, 183 Minn. 354 , 236 N.W.
Murray v. Fox 220 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1974
Murray v. Fox 220 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1974
In this sense, the present case is fully analogous to the situation present in Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306 , and is controlled by our holding there.
Johnson v. Winthrop Laboratories Division of Sterling Drug, Inc. 190 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1971
Johnson v. Winthrop Laboratories Division of Sterling Drug, Inc. 190 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1971
We stated in Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306, 309 , 180 N. W. (2d) 187 , 189: “* * * A policy reason [for the rule] is that the patient must repose reliance upon his physician in the completion of the course of curative treatment, a relationship of trust which inhibits the patient’s ability to discover acts of omission or commission constituting malpractice.” Be