Tort Reform at Work: Minnesota's Affidavit of Expert Review Fatal to MedMal Case

A rather straight-forward statutory requirement of an affidavit of expert review to be filed with a medical malpractice lawsuit has resulted in the dismissal of many putative malpractice actions and, today, another one bites the dust.  (A similar requirement provides a threshold defense for other professionals under Minnesota law, here.)

In today’s decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the injured plaintiff failed to serve the affidavit on the defendants with his complaint, failed to fix the problem within the 60-day “safe harbor” period, and then filed a affidavit by a dentist in a medical-malpractice claim involving acupuncture and a post-orthopedic infection.  Perhaps grinning while typing, the Minnesota Court of Appeals posited that “A dentist does not have the educational training or practical experience in acupuncture or knee replacements to qualify as an expert under the statute for this type of claim.”