Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cornfeldt v. Tongen, 295 N.W.2d 638.

43 citing documents.

Admire Benga, et al., Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Adriel Benga, a Minor, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
To establish causation, a medical-malpractice plaintiff must introduce expert testimony showing “that it is more likely than not that the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the [injury].” Rygwall, d at 429 (quotation omitted); (requiring that medical- malpractice plaintiff, to avoid directed verdict, “introduce expert medical testimony” about 6 Moreover, at least one article in the record notes that “cesarean [section] does appear to reduce the risk for [neonatal brac
Cathy J. Foy, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
18 Appellants also assert the district court erred by including the word “significant” in the informed consent instruction, citing the supreme court’s statement in Cornfeldt v. Tongen (Cornfeldt II), that “[t]o the extent that our prior decision suggests that a physician’s duty to disclose extends only to significant risks, i.e., death or serious harm, it is hereby modified.” n.2 (Minn. 1980).
Antonio Ray Seals, Jr., a minor child by his Mother and Natural Guardian Marciana Davis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Daniel J. Cafferty, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Certainly “[t]he jury cannot be permitted to specu late as to whether earlier diagnosis or different treatment would have resulted in a cure.” Cornfeldt v. Tongen
Lynda Jo Blom, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Because the jury found that none of the defendants acted negligently, and a medical malpractice claim fails without a finding of the defendants’ negligence, the instructions and finding as to Blom’s negligence are irrelevant to Blom’s appeal.
Jeanne Shellum, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 836 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2013
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).
K.A.C. v. Benson 527 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1995
K.A.C. v. Benson 527 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1995
Kinikin, d at 595 (citing Cornfeldt v. Tongen (Cornfeldt II), ).
Williams v. Wadsworth 503 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1993
Williams v. Wadsworth 503 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1993
In addition, expert testimony must be supplied to “establish that it is more probable than not the undisclosed risk did materialize in harm.” (citing *124 -41 (Minn.1980)).
Leubner v. Sterner 493 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1992
Leubner v. Sterner 493 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1992
Fabio v. Bellomo 489 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Fabio v. Bellomo 489 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Leubner v. Sterner 483 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Leubner v. Sterner 483 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kalsbeck, d at 870 ( , 641 n. 4 (Minn.1980)).
Madsen v. Park Nicollet Medical Center 431 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 1988
Madsen v. Park Nicollet Medical Center 431 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 1988
Accordingly he claims that under Cornfeldt v. Tongen I, he was entitled to have his requested negligent nondisclosure instruction read to the jury.
Chicago Greatwestern Office Condominium Ass'n v. Brooks 427 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Chicago Greatwestern Office Condominium Ass'n v. Brooks 427 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
19, 1986) (trial court sanctions for failure to notify opponent of expert who will testify at trial), modified on other grounds
Madsen v. Park Nicollet Medical Center 419 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Madsen v. Park Nicollet Medical Center 419 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See also Cornfeldt v. Tongen (Cornfeldt I), Cornfeldt v. Tongen (Cornfeldt II)
Pratt Ex Rel. Pratt v. University of Minnesota Affiliated Hospitals & Clinics 403 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Pratt Ex Rel. Pratt v. University of Minnesota Affiliated Hospitals & Clinics 403 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-41 (Minn.1980) (Comfeldt II).
Kraushaar v. Austin Medical Clinic P.A. 393 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kraushaar v. Austin Medical Clinic P.A. 393 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
modified on other grounds
Fehling v. Levitan 382 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Fehling v. Levitan 382 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(plaintiff must show it was “more probable than not that but for the operation she would have recovered”); Prosser and Kee-ton on Torts § 41, at 268 (in the great majority of cases, the substantial factor test produces the same legal conclusion as the but-for test).
Goodrich v. McCannel 382 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Goodrich v. McCannel 382 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
To accept her argument, however, (Cornfeldt II).
Clark v. Miller 378 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Clark v. Miller 378 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(Cornfeldt II), delineated the elements for negligent nondisclosure: He must also show a duty to disclose the risk or alternate treatment plan by evidence establishing that a reasonable person in what the physician knows or should have known to be the patient’s position would likely attach significance to
Kalsbeck v. Westview Clinic, P.A. 375 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Kalsbeck v. Westview Clinic, P.A. 375 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Appellant argues that the doctrine of informed consent, as announced in Cornfeldt v. Tongen (Cornfeldt I), and as modified in Cornfeldt v. Tongen (Cornfeldt II), applies to this case and thus it was error to refuse to instruct the jury on the doctrine.
Reinhardt v. Colton 337 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1983
Reinhardt v. Colton 337 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1983
-41 (Minn. 1980) ( Cornfeldt II ).
Plutshack Ex Rel. Plutshack v. University of Minnesota Hospitals 316 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1982
Plutshack Ex Rel. Plutshack v. University of Minnesota Hospitals 316 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1982
Kinikin v. Heupel 305 N.W.2d 589 Minn. 1981
Kinikin v. Heupel 305 N.W.2d 589 Minn. 1981
He claims, however, these standards were modified in Cornfeidt II, i. e., decided after defendant’s trial, on August 8, 1980.