Cited by

of Minn., n.4 (Minn. 2002).

of Minn., (concluding expert’s conclusory explanation of causation was insufficient); (affirming dismissal of malpractice claim where affidavit included a “single sentence on causation”).

of Minn., n.4 (Minn. 2002).

of Minn., n.4 (Minn. 2002).

of Minn., (quotation omitted).

of Minn., (relying on Sorenson v. St.

of Minn., (quotation omitted); (applying abuse-of-discretion standard when expert- qualification issue arose in summary-judgment context).

of Minn., (quotation omitted).

of Minn., (quoting Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., ).

of Minnesota , (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

of Minn., (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s case for failure to provide a sufficient affidavit of expert review after determining that plaintiff’s expert had not specialized in oncology and was not otherwise experienced in bone-marrow transplants and so was unqualified to offer causation opinion for bone-

of Minn ., (quoting Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc. , ) , refusing to reverse even if we “would reach a different conclusion with respect to the sufficiency of the foundation,”

d 420, 427-28 (Minn. 2002).

of Minn., d 420, 428 (Minn. 2002).

of Minn. , 8 (determining that an affidavit’s statement that “t he departures from accepted levels of care, as above identified, we re a direct cause of [plaintiff’s] death” did not sufficiently outline causation) ; Mercer, d at 123 (holding that an affidavit stating that “the departure from the stan

of Minn. , n.4 (Minn. 2002).

of Minn., n.4 (Minn. 2002).

of Minn., (quotations omitted).

An expert disclosure must give more than a “sneak preview” and must “explain[] to the jury the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ the malpractice caused the injury.” n.4, 430 (Minn. 2002).

of Minn., 427 *44 (Minn.2002).

of Minn., (reviewing a district court’s dismissal of a claim pursuant to Minn.Stat.