Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., 599 N.W.2d 572.

54 citing documents.

Anjela Carpenter v. Meridian Behavioral Health LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., see Broehm, d at 726 (“[W]e have stressed that 13 plaintiffs must adhere to strict compliance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 145.682.”).
Cynthia Pitchford as Trustee for the Heirs and Next-of-Kin of D-Angelo Pitchford, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Munda Forbort, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
disclose specific details concerning their experts’ expected testimony, including the applicable standard of care, the acts or omissions that plaintiff alleges violated the standard of care and an outline of the chain of causation between the violation of the standard of care and the plaintiff’s damages.” Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Chad Darwin Koetz, Trustee for the Heirs and Next-of-Kin of Gloria Lynn Koetz, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc ., (acknowledging that Minn. Stat. § 145.682 “may have harsh results in some cases” but stating that the legislature chose to enact a “policy of eliminating frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits by dismissal”).
Joyce Wolling, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Our supreme court has observed that “[t]he requirements of Minn. Stat. § 145.682 are uncomplicated and unambiguous.” Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc.
Angie M. Barsness, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Ctr., (concluding that an expert affidavit “did not meet the requirements of the statute” because it “provide[d] only broad, conclusory statements as to causation[,]” 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
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
Stroud simply contains no hint that we were challenging or changing, let alone overruling, our clear statement in Sorenson that an expert in a medical malpractice case is not required to make a “detailed disclosure.” In Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., –77 (Minn. 1999), we relied on Sorenson and Stroud and held that a short, 6-paragraph affidavit that did not recite any facts upon which the expert was basing his opinion was deficient.
Makenzie Moore, a minor, by and through her Conservator, First Fiduciary Corporation, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Joseph Kurian, individually, and as Trustee for Samael Alessandro Ittyerah, deceased, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Strict compliance” with section 145.682 is required, “[s]o as not to undermine the legislative aim of expert review and disclosure.” Broehm, d at 726; see also Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., -78 (Minn. 1999) (concluding that the statutory requirements of section 145.682 are “uncomplicated and unambiguous” and contemplate strict compliance).
Phillip Musselman, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Ctr., (affirming summary judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to provide sufficient expert affidavit and determining that expert’s “broad” and “conclusory” opinions could not establish defendant’s failure t o diagn ose and treat hemorrhage caused patient’s death); Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., (affirming summary judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to provide sufficient expert affidavit and rejecting expert’s “broad and concluso ry statements” that defendant’s failure to instruct pregnant
Ludwig P. Samson, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Christine R. Samson, deceased, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
will not excuse or justify an affidavit of expert identification falling short of the substantive disclosure requirement.” Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., (“So as not to undermine the legislative aim of expe rt review and disclosure, we have stressed that plaintiffs must adhere to strict compliance with th e requirements of Minn. Stat. § 145.682.”).
Guzick v. Kimball 869 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2015
Kenneth A. Roseland v. Joseph A. Wentzell, Attorney at Law, Richard L. Kusick, and Roseland Acres, LLC, third … 864 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kenneth A. Roseland v. Joseph A. Wentzell, Attorney at Law, Richard L. Kusick, and Roseland Acres, LLC, third … 864 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“If the affidavits contain ‘nothing more than broad and conclusory statements as to causation,’ they are legally insufficient to satisfy the professional-malpractice statute.” Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, (quoting Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., (applying Minn. Stat. § 145.682)), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Mary Beth Davidson v. North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North Memorial Medical Center, and d/b/a North Memorial Ambulance … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mary Beth Davidson v. North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North Memorial Medical Center, and d/b/a North Memorial Ambulance … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d at 726; see also Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., -78 (Minn.1999) (concluding that the statutory requirements of section 145.682 are “uncomplicated and unambiguous” and contemplate strict compliance).
Curtis Anderson v. Bradly J. Donabauer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Curtis Anderson v. Bradly J. Donabauer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
tatues requires medical-malpractice plaintiffs to disclose “specific details concerning their experts’ expected testimony, including the applicable standard of care, the acts or omissions that plaintiffs allege violated the standard of care, and an outline of the chain of causation between the violation [of] the standard of care and the plaintiff’s damages.” Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Timothy Guzick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George J. Nyberg and as Trustee of the George … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Timothy Guzick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George J. Nyberg and as Trustee of the George … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc.
Julie L. Pfeiffer, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Dale R. Pfeiffer v. … 851 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Julie L. Pfeiffer, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Dale R. Pfeiffer v. … 851 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
6(c) (2012) (mandating that failure to comply with the requirements of the expert review statute results in mandatory dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit); -78 (Minn. 1999) (holding that Minn. Stat. § 145.682 is unambiguous and requires strict compliance with its provisions).
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 836 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2013
Wesely v. Flor 806 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2011
Wesely v. Flor 806 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2011
Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., (discussing Stroud v. Hennepin Cnty.
Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN 783 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN 783 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc.
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
Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., (dismissing medical malpractice action); see also Teffeteller, d at 430 (dismissing medical malpractice action and stating that the affidavit required under section 145.682, subdivision 4, must give more than a “sneak preview” of the expert’s testimony); Stroud v. Hennepin County Med.
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Mercer v. Andersen 715 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Mercer v. Andersen 715 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
at 726 ; -78 (Minn.1999).
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
of Minn., -31 (Minn.2002) (dismissal of malpractice action mandated where expert disclosure contains only broad and conclusory statements); Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., (dismissal mandated where expert disclosure falls short of the substantive disclosure requirements).
Middle River-Snake River Watershed District v. Dennis Drewes, Inc. 692 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Middle River-Snake River Watershed District v. Dennis Drewes, Inc. 692 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
exception and it is not for the courts to read into a clear statutory scheme something that plainly is not there.” Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc.
Broehm v. Mayo Clinic Rochester 690 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2005
Broehm v. Mayo Clinic Rochester 690 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2005
See Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., -78 (Minn.1999) (statutory requirements are “uncomplicated and unambiguous” and contemplate strict compliance).
Maudsley v. Pederson 676 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Maudsley v. Pederson 676 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
6; Lind-berg v. Health Partners, Inc.
Teffeteller v. University of Minnesota 645 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 2002
Teffeteller v. University of Minnesota 645 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 2002
6; see also Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc.
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
6; Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc.
Demgen v. Fairview Hospital 621 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Demgen v. Fairview Hospital 621 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
The supreme court addressed the adequacy of the expert’s affidavit in another case involving a stillborn baby, Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc.
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
To support its conclusion, the court of appeals cited Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., and its prohibition on the use of nonaffidavit materials to supplement the required affidavit.
Canfield v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. 610 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Canfield v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. 610 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See, e.g., Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., (malpractice case where clinic failed to advise expectant mother to come to hospital and baby was stillborn); Stroud, (action by trustee against hospital for failure to diagnose and treat); Thorson v. Rice County Dist.