Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McDonough v. Allina Health System, 685 N.W.2d 688.

20 citing documents.

Cynthia Pitchford as Trustee for the Heirs and Next-of-Kin of D-Angelo Pitchford, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A plaintiff cannot satisfy their burden at the prima facie stage by alleging a “mere possibility of causation.”
Edward Gerrety, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A plaintiff cannot satisfy its burden at the prima facie stage by alleging a “mere possibility of causation.”
Admire Benga, et al., Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Adriel Benga, a Minor, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“ The failure to provide such admissible expert testimony results in the failure to establish an essential element of that party’s case, and the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.”).
Antonio Ray Seals, Jr., a minor child by his Mother and Natural Guardian Marciana Davis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
1 n.1 (Minn. App. 2004) (“A patent foramen ovale is an opening between the upper two chambers of the heart that has failed to close after birth.”).
Jon Huseth, et al., d/b/a Clay View Dairy, LLP, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A minor, by and through her mother and natural guardian, Amber Nelson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Phillip Musselman, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
egligence claim, a plaintiff must offer evidence sufficient to present a prima facie case on three elements: “‘(1) the standard of care recognized by the medical community as applicable t o the particular defendant, (2) that the defendant departed from tha t standard, and (3) that the defendant’s departure was a direct cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.’” McDonough v. Allina Health Sys., 9 (quotation omitted).
Jeanne Shellum, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Richard R. Ryan, Trustee for the Next-of-Kin of Debra Lynn Ryan, Decedent for Action for Death by Wrongful … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(citing Walton v. Jones , ) .
In re 3M Bair Hugger Litig. 924 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re 3M Bair Hugger Litig. 924 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
697 (Minn. App. 2004) (excluding as irrelevant the evidence that a stroke victim's drug had been infused at a high rate, i.e., evidence of a methodology, because "appellants still did not produce any evidence showing that it is generally accepted by the medical or science communities that such a high rate of infusio
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
She cites a footnote in a medical malpractice case, n.3 (Minn. App. 2004).
Cindy Ly, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ludwig P. Samson, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Christine R. Samson, deceased, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 688, 697 (Minn. App. 2004) (citations omitted).
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The physician then ‘rules out’ the least plausible causes of injury until the most likely cause remains.” n.3 (Minn. App. 2004) (quotation omitted).
John Doe 76C v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis 801 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
John Doe 76C v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis 801 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Under Frye-Mack, the proponent of scientific expert testimony generally “must establish the proper foundation for admissibility by showing that the scientific theory is generally accepted in the applicable medical or scientific community, and that the principles and methodology used are reliable.” (citing Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923); ).
Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Minnesota adheres to the Frye-Mack standard to determine the admission of expert testimony based on scientific techniques and principles.”