Murphy v. Allina Health System

10 Citing cases

  1. Professional Fiduciary, Inc. v. Silverman

    713 N.W.2d 67 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that a "personal representative can assert a malpractice claim against the decedent's former attorney"

    In deciding a certified question arising from denial of summary judgment, "we review the record to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied." Murphy v. Allina Health Sys., 668 N.W.2d 17, 20 (Minn.App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 2003). Absent genuine issues of material fact, appellate courts review certified questions de novo.

  2. Lamere v. St. Jude Med., Inc.

    827 N.W.2d 782 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 21 times
    Finding that imposing the state's strict-liability rules on a PMA device would impose a general duty that would directly regulate the device itself and be a regulation different from the applicable federal regulations

    Despite any injustice or illogic to such an approach, the plain meaning of the statute seems to be clear.... [T]he legislature is expressing its intention to bar actions for some deaths caused by wrongful acts or omissions even if they are brought on the day of death.DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co., 319 N.W.2d 45, 48 (Minn.1982); cf. Murphy v. Allina Health Sys., 668 N.W.2d 17, 22 (Minn.App.2003) (concluding that, with regard to a wrongful-death claim based in medical malpractice, “some wrongful death actions may be barred under the statute even if they are brought on the day of death”), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 2003). Because we conclude that the statute is unambiguous, we must apply the statute pursuant to its plain language.

  3. Ames & Fischer Co. v. McDonald

    798 N.W.2d 557 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 9 times
    Finding that the applicable statute of limitations for an accounting malpractice claim accrued upon the filing of a tax return

    We review de novo whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the district court correctly applied the law. Murphy v. Allina Health Sys., 668 N.W.2d 17, 20 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 2003).

  4. Cargill, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co.

    766 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    In deciding a certified question arising from denial of summary judgment, this court "review[s] the record to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied." Murphy v. Allina Health Sys., 668 N.W.2d 17, 20 (Minn.App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 2003). Absent genuine issues of material fact, appellate courts review certified questions de novo.

  5. Clark v. Fabian

    No. A08-0308 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    Generally, the statute of limitations that is in existence at the time that the action is brought controls. Murphy v. Allina Health System, 668 N.W.2d 17, 22 (Minn.App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 2003). Fraud and negligence claims have statutes of limitations of six (6) years. Minn. Stat. § 541.05 subd. 1(5), (6) (2006).

  6. Dunn v. Natl. Beverage

    729 N.W.2d 637 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 9 times
    Stating that " breach-of-contract claim cannot be maintained when the rights vested in the contract have been assigned to another party"

    This court will review an appeal from a denial of summary judgment "to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied." Murphy v. Allina Health Sys., 668 N.W.2d 17, 20 (Minn.App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 2003). This court will review a district court order denying a motion for directed verdict or JNOV de novo.

  7. Crossman v. Lockwood

    713 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 9 times
    Noting that the "rationale behind the requirement of privity is closely associated with the fourth requirement of [collateral estoppel], thus effectively merging consideration of the two"

    On review of a question certified as important and doubtful after the denial of a summary-judgment motion, "we review the record to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied." Murphy v. Allina Health Sys., 668 N.W.2d 17, 20 (Minn.App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 2003). Whether collateral estoppel applies is a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review.

  8. Eller v. Diocese of St. Cloud

    No. A05-828 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2006)

    On appeal "from a denial of summary judgment, we review the record to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied." Murphy v. Allina Health Sys., 668 N.W.2d 17, 20 (Minn.App. 2003). "[W]e view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party."

  9. Johnson v. Foundry, Inc.

    702 N.W.2d 274 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 1 times
    Noting that while "a corporation cannot sustain bodily injury, [] a corporation may sustain property damage"

    " On review of a certified question arising from denial of summary judgment, "we review the record to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied." Murphy v. Allina Health Sys., 668 N.W.2d 17, 20 (Minn.App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 2003).

  10. Zenzen v. Eiser

    No. A04-905 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2005)

    Accordingly, wrongful death claims in Minnesota must be brought within three years of the date of death, but can never be brought more than four years from the date that the medical malpractice cause of action accrued. See Murphy v. Allina Health Sys., 668 N.W.2d 17, 21-22 (Minn.App. 2003) (noting that some wrongful death actions may be barred under the statute even if they are brought on the date of death), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 2003). It follows then, that the statute of limitations for a wrongful death action based on medical malpractice begins running at the same time as the decedent's medical malpractice claim.