Cited by

12 “[T]he primary purpose of the statute is to eliminate nuisance malpractice suits.”

(stating that “whether or not to enforce its own scheduling order is clearly within the district court’s discretion”).

(“[W]hether or not to enforce its own scheduling order is clearly within the district court’s discretion.”).

In December 2023, the district court granted respondent’s summary -judgment motion, (affirming dismissal with prejudice of medical -malpractice case “because [the appellant’s] expert affidavit failed to set forth a detailed chain of causation explaining how and why [the respondent’s] delay in treatment resulted in [the appellant’s] loss of vision”).

“And whether or not to enforce its own scheduling order is clearly within the district court’s discretion.”

ausation[,]” and did not “provide an outline of the chain of causation between the alleged violation of the standard of care and the claimed damages”); Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., (affirming the dismissal of a medical- malpractice claim because the expert affidavit only contained “broad and conclusory statements as to causation”); (“The conclusory statements that generally earlier treatment results in better outcomes and that every hour counts fail to outline specific details explaining h

ACR points to court of appeals precedents requiring a “detailed chain of causation,” as evidence of the purported change in law following section 145.682’s enactment.

P. 16.02, “[a] schedule shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of good cause.” But “whether or not to enforce its own scheduling order is clearly within the district court’s discretion.” d 8, 11-12 (Minn. App. 2004).

Caselaw requires “a detailed chain of causation explaining how and why [defendant’s] delay in treatment resulted in [plaintiff’s injury].”

At oral argument, the hospital also cited Maudsley v. Pederson , to argue that here appellant did not provide a sufficient level of specificity to meet the burden of proof on causation.

(“The primary purpose of an expert affidavit is to illustrate ‘how’ and ‘why’ the alleged malpractice caused the injury.”); (concluding that a prima facie case of medical malpractice requires causation, shown “normally in the form

(“[W]hether or not to enforce its own scheduling order is clearly within the district court’s discretion.”); see also Rhee v. Golden Home Builders, Inc., (“Rhees were unfairly prejudiced by the court’s failure to enforce the [general] rules [of practice]