Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Plutshack Ex Rel. Plutshack v. University of Minnesota Hospitals, 316 N.W.2d 1.

57 citing documents.

Edward Gerrety, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Jay Maurice, as Trustee for the next-of-kin of Jon Maurice, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
of Minn. Hosps., (outlining the elements of negligent care and treatment against medical personnel).
Angie M. Barsness, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Judith Rygwall, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Amy Rygwall v. ACR Homes, Inc. … 6 N.W.3d 416 Minn. 2024
Judith Rygwall, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Amy Rygwall v. ACR Homes, Inc. … 6 N.W.3d 416 Minn. 2024
of Minn. Hosps., (characterizing a medical malpractice claim as a doctor’s “negligent care and treatment” of a patient).
A minor child by his mother and natural guardian, Chelsea Rose, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Sharon Schirmer, trustee for the next of kin of Cary F. Schirmer v. The Duluth Clinic, Ltd., d/b/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Sharon Schirmer, trustee for the next of kin of Cary F. Schirmer v. The Duluth Clinic, Ltd., d/b/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
of Minn. Hosp., (quotation omitted).
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 836 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2013
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 836 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2013
MacRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc. 753 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2008
MacRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc. 753 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2008
of Minn. Hosps., see also Molloy, d at 720-22 (stating that a cause of action does not accrue until both the negligent act and the resulting injury have occurred).
Becker v. Mayo Foundation 737 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2007
Becker v. Mayo Foundation 737 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2007
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co. 732 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 2007
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co. 732 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 2007
of Minn. Hosps., cf. Admiral Merchs.
Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
Tousignant v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MN 615 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 2000
Tousignant v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MN 615 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 2000
Russell v. Johnson 608 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Russell v. Johnson 608 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
person in what the physician knows or should have known to be the plaintiffs position would likely attach significance to that risk or alternative in deciding whether to consent to treatment; (3) breach of that duty; (4) causation (the undisclosed risk must materialize in harm); and (5) damages.” ().
Zilisch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 977 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
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
Bigay v. Garvey 575 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1998
Bigay v. Garvey 575 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1998
Wall v. Fair View Hospital & Healthcare Services 568 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Wall v. Fair View Hospital & Healthcare Services 568 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
9 (Minn.1982) (stating elements of negligent treatment and negligent nondisclosure claims).
Fabio v. Bellomo 504 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1993
Fabio v. Bellomo 504 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1993
Williams v. Wadsworth 503 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1993
Williams v. Wadsworth 503 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1993
igent care and treatment claim, the plaintiff must offer an expert opinion demonstrating “(1) the standard of care recognized by the medical community as applicable to * * * defendant’s conduct, (2) that the defendant in fact departed from that standard, and (3) that the defendant’s departure from that standard was a direct cause of [the] injur[y].”
Leubner v. Sterner 493 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1992
Leubner v. Sterner 493 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1992
Alevizos v. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COM'N 452 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Alevizos v. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COM'N 452 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
McElwain v. Van Beek 447 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
McElwain v. Van Beek 447 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Western Surety & Casualty Co. v. General Electric Co. 433 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Western Surety & Casualty Co. v. General Electric Co. 433 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Schneider v. Buckman 412 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Schneider v. Buckman 412 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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
the supreme court held that to state a claim for negligent nondisclosure a plaintiff must demonstrate five elements: (1) a duty on the part of the physician to know of a risk or alternative treatment plan; (2) a duty to disclose the risk or alternative program, which may be established by a showing that a
Bauer v. Friedland 394 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bauer v. Friedland 394 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
al malpractice for negligent medical treatment, a plaintiff must show “(1) the standard of care recognized by the medical community as applicable to the particular defendant’s conduct, (2) that the defendant in fact departed from that standard, and (3) that the defendant’s departure from that standard was a direct cause of [the patient’s] injuries.”
Goodrich v. McCannel 382 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1986