Peter Gerard Lonergan, John Joseph Kotowski v. Dakota County Social Services, ...

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A23-1536

Peter Gerard Lonergan,
Appellant,

John Joseph Kotowski,
Appellant,

vs.

Dakota County Social Services, et al.,
Respondents.

Filed May 28, 2024
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-CV-23-599

Peter Gerard Lonergan, Moose Lake, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

John Joseph Kotowski, Moose Lake, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Kathryn M. Keena, Dakota County Attorney, Justin Hagel, Assistant County Attorney,
Hastings, Minnesota (for respondents)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Gaïtas, Judge; and Larson,

Judge.
 NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

CONNOLLY, Judge

Self-represented appellants challenge the dismissal with prejudice of their claims

against respondent county social services and some of its employees, alleging that

appellants’ information and records were erroneously released and seeking compensation

for the alleged error. Because appellants brought their claims against Dakota County

Social Services, which was not the entity responsible for the alleged violations, we affirm

the dismissal.

FACTS

In February 2023, pro se appellants Peter Lonergan and John Kotowski, both civilly

committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program as sexually dangerous persons, filed

separate complaints alleging that respondents Dakota County Social Services and some

employees released appellants’ medical records, billing, and invoice history between 2016

and 2022 in violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), Minn.

Stat. §§ 13.01-.90 (2022) and the Minnesota Health Records Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat.

§§ 144.291-.298 (2022). Appellants sought compensatory and exemplary damages of more

than $50,000, as well as interest, costs, and reasonable fees, future damages, and injunctive

relief to retrieve and restore their records. The district court consolidated appellants’ cases.

Respondents moved for judgment on the pleadings. Their motion was granted, and

appellants’ complaints were dismissed with prejudice because they had not brought their

action against the responsible authority, namely Dakota County. Appellants challenge the

dismissal, arguing that the district court erred in not finding that individual respondents

2
committed professional misconduct, in dismissing claims against individual respondents,

and in failing to identify any released health records within the meaning of the MHRA;

they also argue that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing their claims with

prejudice.

DECISION

We review a district court decision on a motion for judgment on the pleadings under

Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.03 de novo to determine whether the complaint sets forth a legally

sufficient claim for relief. Burt v. Rackner, Inc., 902 N.W.2d 448, 451 (Minn. 2017). In

that review, we “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as

true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Id. (quotation

omitted).

I. The MGDPA Claims

The MGDPA provides that a “a responsible authority or government entity which

violates any provision of this chapter is liable to a person . . . who suffers any damage as a

result of the violation, and the person damaged . . . may bring an action against the

responsible authority or government entity.” Minn. Stat. § 13.08, subd. 1. “Responsible

Authority” in any political subdivision means the individual designated by the governing

body of that political subdivision as the individual responsible for the collection, use, and

dissemination of any set of data on individuals . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 16(b)

(2022).

Appellants’ complaints alleged that respondents Dakota County Social Services;

Laurie Halverson, the Administration Center Commissioner of Dakota County Social

3
Services; Jered Rauk, a Dakota County employee, and Jodi Grenier, another Dakota

County employee, were all “responsible authorities” who violated the MGDPA by

releasing appellants’ records and were therefore liable to appellants. The district court

found that “[appellants’ c]omplaints do not support a finding that the named [respondents]

are responsible authorities.” Appellants challenge that finding, arguing that, because they

named Dakota County Social Services as a responsible authority, their action is actually

against Dakota County. This argument is contradicted by the complaints themselves.

Appellants seem to argue that, because the named respondents were Dakota County

employees and they were sued in their official capacity, appellants must only “allege facts

sufficient to show that respondents acted within the scope of their employment.” But

claims under the MGDPA can be brought only against a “responsible authority or

government entity,” Minn. Stat. § 13.08, subd. 1, not against any individuals acting within

the scope of their employment, and “responsible authorities” are defined as individuals

“designated by the governing of that political subdivision as [individuals] responsible for

the collection, use, and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data,

or summary data, unless otherwise provided by state law.” Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 16(b).

The fact that respondents were acting in their official capacity is irrelevant to the MGDPA

claims, and there was no error in the dismissal of those claims.

II. The MHRA Claims

The MHRA imposes liability on anyone who negligently or intentionally releases a

health record in violation of its guidelines. A health record is:

4
 any information, whether oral or recorded in any form or
medium, that relates to [1] the past, present or future physical
or mental health or condition of a patient, [2] the provision of
health care to a patient; or [3] the past, present, or future
payment for the provision of health care to a patient.

Minn. Stat. § 144.291, subd. 2(c). The district court concluded that appellants’ “names,

addresses, MREC’s [medical records numbers or client ID numbers], dates of birth, gender,

billing/invoice information, ‘other clinical and nonclinical data,’ and ‘other not public,

private data still unknown to [appellants]’” do not relate to appellants’ physical or mental

health, the provision of their health care, or the payment for the provision of that care, and

therefore are not protected by the MHRA.

There was no error in the dismissal of the MHRA claims.

III. Dismissal with Prejudice

A district court has “a wide discretion in determining whether dismissals shall be

with or without prejudice.” Falkenstein v. Braufman, 88 N.W.2d 884, 889 (Minn. 1958);

Kelbro Co. v. Vinny’s on the River, LLC, 893 N.W.2d 390, 398 (Minn. App. 2017).

As to the MGDPA claims, the district court found that appellants failed to allege

facts that, if true, showed that: (A) respondents were responsible authorities; (B) any

responsible authorities, not their employees, agents, or representatives, violated the

MGDPA; or (C), appellants suffered actual, not speculative or future, damage by the

violation. See Minn. Stat. §§ 13.01, .02, .08. As to the MHRA claims, the district court

found that: (A) no facts were consistent with appellant’s complaints alleging that any

respondent “negligently or intentionally requested or released any data—let alone health

record data”; (B) the information released did not pertain to appellants’ physical or mental

5
health, the provision of health care, or the payment for health care; and (C) appellants failed

to demonstrate they were injured as the result of any facts alleged in their complaints. See

Minn. Stat. § 144.291, subds 1-2. The district court therefore dismissed their claims with

prejudice.

Appellants argue that this was error, but they do not refute any of the findings, and

the cases appellants rely on are distinguishable and do not support their position. This court

in Adams v. Harpstead, 947 N.W.2d 838, 845 (Minn. App. 2020), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

1, 2020), affirmed a summary judgment denying claims under the MGDPA because the

claimant “failed to bring forward competent evidence that his alleged emotional injury

occurred under circumstances tending to guarantee its genuineness.” Appellants’ claimed

damages were all things that might, but had not yet, happened. And in Halva v. Minn. State

Colls and Univs., 953 N.W.2d 496, 503 (Minn. 2001), the supreme court concluded that an

MGDPA complaint “list[ed] a number of facts that could support a finding of a [MGDPA]

violation” and provided an “explanation of the factual nexus and the alleged damages that

resulted from that factual nexus.” Here, appellants did neither of these. The district court

did not abuse its discretion in dismissing their claims with prejudice.1

Affirmed.

1
Appellants also challenge the denial of their motion to amend the pleadings. But
respondents moved for judgment on the pleadings in June; their motion was heard in July;
and appellants did not move to amend their pleadings until September. There was no error
in denying a motion to amend pleadings on which judgment was already pending.

6