Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cornfeldt v. Tongen, 262 N.W.2d 684.

153 citing documents.

Admire Benga, et al., Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Adriel Benga, a Minor, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
of an alternative treatment.”
Chad Darwin Koetz, Trustee for the Heirs and Next-of-Kin of Gloria Lynn Koetz, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Ctr., d 401 (Minn. 1986); Cornfeldt v. Tongen , Kraushaar v. Austin Med.
Cathy J. Foy, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In support of this argument, they cite Cornfeldt v. Tongen (Cornfeldt I), in which the supreme court explained that, “even if his disclosure conforms to accepted medical practice, a physician nevertheless should be liable if he fails to inform the patient of a significant risk of treatment or of an alternative treatment.”
Jacob Becker, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Minnesota, in which t he supreme court “held that when there is a particular risk inherent in a treatment or procedure the doctor may have a duty to disclose it.” Pratt by Pratt v. Univ.
Jolene Luczak v. St. Mary's Medical Center Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jolene Luczak v. St. Mary's Medical Center Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Rather, “it is a practical knowledge of what is usually and customarily done by 8 physicians under circumstances similar to those which confronted the defendant charged with malpractice that is of controlling importance.” ().
Kallys Albert, Sr. v. Chon Xiong, Jared J. Timmer (Progressive Claims Generalist), ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Kallys Albert, Sr. v. Chon Xiong, Jared J. Timmer (Progressive Claims Generalist), ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
14, 2010); (“Trial courts must have discretion to determine the sanction appropriate to a violation of the discovery rules, for they are in the best position to assess the degree of prejudice that will arise from the violation and the efficacy of the remedies available .
Joseph Kurian, individually, and as Trustee for Samael Alessandro Ittyerah, deceased, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 684, 692 (Minn. 1977).
Vickie M. Jones, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
This court noted that “despite counsel’s creative characterizations and foreign support, this case is a malpractice action” because the “doctor’s duty to disclose the kickback scheme presents a classic informed consent issue.” Id.; (noting a doctor’s duty to inform patients of treatment risks).
Mario A. Ruiz, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[W]e have required both sufficient scientific knowledge of and some practical experience with the subject matter of the offered testimony.” see also Gross
Patricia J. Marquardt, Minn. 2020
10 In urging us to reach the opposite conclusion, Dr. Schaffhausen cites several cases
Patricia J. Marquardt, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cornfeldt v. Tongen , (citation omitted).
Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. v. County of Hennepin 899 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 2017
Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. v. County of Hennepin 899 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 2017
Additionally, “[tjrial courts must have discretion to determine the sanction appropriate to a violation of the discovery rules, for they are in the best position to assess the degree of prejudice that will arise from, the violation and the efficacy of the remedies *459 available that may prevent prejudice from resulting.”
Ernest Malisheske, Great West Casualty Company, Intervenor v. Kevin Kortan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ernest Malisheske, Great West Casualty Company, Intervenor v. Kevin Kortan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A party is entitled to a specific instruction on his theory 11 of the case if there is evidence to support the instruction and it is in accordance with the applicable law.”
Gary Cyril Jenco v. Paul James Crowe, M.D., John Y. Hendricks, M.D., North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gary Cyril Jenco v. Paul James Crowe, M.D., John Y. Hendricks, M.D., North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Teffeteller, d at 427 (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that doctor without specialization in field of pediatric oncology or experience with bone-marrow transplants was not qualified to testify as to standard of care for treating bone-marrow transplant patient); 694 (Minn. 1997) (affirming exclusion of testimony of gastroenterologist and pathologist about the actions of an anesthesiologist); Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129, 136, 140, 669 (1968) (ho
Curtis Anderson v. Bradly J. Donabauer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Curtis Anderson v. Bradly J. Donabauer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
To be qualified to offer an expert opinion on a medical matter, a witness must possess “both sufficient scientific knowledge of and some practical experience with the subject matter of the offered testimony.”
United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC 813 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2012
United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC 813 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2012
(concluding the district court erred when it “invaded the province of the jury under Minn. St.
Broehm v. Mayo Clinic Rochester 690 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2005
Broehm v. Mayo Clinic Rochester 690 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2005
and Healthcare Servs., (psychologist and psychotherapist not qualified to provide expert opinion about the appropriate standard of care for a psychiatric nurse); (expert medical witnesses must have both sufficient scientific knowledge and practical experience with respect to subject matter of the offered testimony).
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 657 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 657 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Teffeteller v. University of Minnesota 645 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 2002
Teffeteller v. University of Minnesota 645 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 2002
(indicating that in order for a medical witness to be competent to testify as an expert, the witness must have both sufficient scientific knowledge of and practical experience with the subject matter of the offered testimony); Swanson v. Ckat-terton, 281 Minn. 129,140
Teffeteller v. University of Minnesota 626 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Teffeteller v. University of Minnesota 626 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Shea v. Esensten 622 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Shea v. Esensten 622 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Muehlhauser v. Erickson 621 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Muehlhauser v. Erickson 621 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Paulos v. Johnson 597 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Paulos v. Johnson 597 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(recognizing cause of action for medical malpractice resulting from negligent nondisclosure of significant treatment risks).
State v. Patterson 587 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1998
State v. Patterson 587 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1998
* * * Accordingly, we will not overturn its ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.” Lindsey, d at 373
Wall v. Fairview Hospital & Healthcare Services 584 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1998
Wall v. Fairview Hospital & Healthcare Services 584 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1998
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc. 578 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1998
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc. 578 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1998
[Gross’s] expert is not competent to render an expert opinion on medical causation in this case.
D.A.B. v. Brown 570 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
D.A.B. v. Brown 570 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(Cornfeldt II); (Cornfeldt I).
Koch v. Mork Clinic, P.A. 540 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Koch v. Mork Clinic, P.A. 540 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Patton v. Newmar Corp. 538 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 1995
Patton v. Newmar Corp. 538 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 1995
K.A.C. v. Benson 527 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1995