Opinion
A22-0866
02-01-2023
Mitchell Thomas Ellis, Appellant, v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Washington County District Court File No. 82-CV-21-2128
Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Klaphake, Judge. [*]
ORDER OPINION
Lucinda E. Wesson Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. On December 23, 2016, appellant Mitchell Thomas Ellis sustained a facial injury after he was jumped by other inmates at Minnesota Correctional Facility-Stillwater (Stillwater). Ellis received medical treatment from respondent Minnesota Department of Corrections (the Department) at Stillwater. Ellis claims that the Department committed medical malpractice when it treated his facial injury because it negligently failed to reset his broken facial bone.
2. On May 24, 2021, Ellis filed a medical-malpractice complaint against the Department with the district court.
3. Five months later, on October 20, 2021, Ellis served the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General (the Attorney General) with his complaint.
4. On November 8, 2021, within the 21-day response deadline, the Department filed a motion to dismiss Ellis's complaint because it was barred by the statute of limitations and Ellis failed to comply with the statutory requirement of an expert-witness affidavit for medical-malpractice claims. Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02; Minn. Stat. § 145.682, subd. 6 (2022) (stating that failing to comply with the expert-witness-affidavit requirement results in a mandatory dismissal of a claim).
5. The district court granted the Department's motion and dismissed Ellis's complaint with prejudice because his cause of action was barred by the four-year statute of limitations. Minn. Stat. § 541.076(b) (2022).
6. Ellis appeals the resulting judgment.
7. A medical-malpractice claim must be commenced within four years from the date the cause of action accrued. Minn. Stat. § 541.076(b). In Minnesota, actions are commenced through service of the summons and complaint. Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01. A claim brought outside of the statute of limitations is barred. See Pederson v. Am. Lutheran Church, 404 N.W.2d 887, 889 (Minn.App. 1987) (holding that dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations is proper if it is clear from the face of the complaint that the statute of limitations has run), rev. denied (Minn. Jun. 30, 1987).
8. Ellis's claim accrued on December 23, 2016. Thus, the statute of limitations on his claim would have expired on December 23, 2020. The expiration was extended until April 16, 2021, under a 2021 law related to the COVID-19 pandemic. 2021 Minn. Laws ch. 3, § 1, at 211. Since Ellis did not serve the Attorney General until October 20, 2021, his claim was barred by the statute of limitations. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01, 4.03(d) (stating that when a defendant is a state department, an action is commenced upon service to the Attorney General).
9. But Ellis contends that a 2020 COVID-19 law tolled his statute of limitations, so his claim had not yet expired when he served the Attorney General. See 2020 Minn. Laws ch. 74, art. 1, § 16(a), (b) at 66 (stating that the running of deadlines imposed by statutes is suspended during the peacetime emergency declared on March 13, 2020, and for 60 days after). But that law suspended the statute of limitations during the peacetime emergency, it did not toll it. Id. And the 2021 COVID-19 law amended the 2020 law to provide that statutes of limitation would not expire through April 15, 2021. 2021 Minn. Laws ch. 3, § 1, at 211. Accordingly, Ellis's medical-malpractice claim's statute of limitations, although extended past December 23, 2020, expired approximately six months before he commenced his action, and his claim is thus barred.
10. Therefore, the district court did not err by dismissing Ellis's complaint with prejudice because his medical-malpractice claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
11. Ellis raises another issue on appeal. He claims that he was not required to comply with the expert-witness-affidavit statutory requirement for medical-malpractice claims because his claim is one of "general knowledge." Mercer v. Andersen, 715 N.W.2d 114, 122 (Minn.App. 2006). Because the statute-of-limitations issue is dispositive, we do not reach this issue.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.