Opinion
A23-0043
05-30-2023
Timothy Stafki, Appellant, v. Fairview Health Services, Respondent.
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CV-22-3790
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Reilly, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Renee L. Worke, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. On May 5, 2022, appellant Timothy Stafki (husband), on behalf of Lori Stafki (wife), served respondent Fairview Health Services (hospital) a wrongful-death complaint alleging negligence in the placement of a feeding tube in wife's abdomen that perforated her bowel resulting in complications and her death on May 6, 2019.
2. Hospital's counsel requested a copy of the order appointing husband as trustee for the next of kin. Instead, husband's counsel provided a copy of wife's power of attorney and an affidavit of personal property.
3. Hospital moved the district court to dismiss husband's complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that because no trustee had been appointed, "this action is a legal nullity." The district court granted the motion.
4. Husband now challenges the district court's rule 12.02(e) dismissal of the wrongful-death claim. The district court will dismiss a complaint when the plaintiff "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). We review de novo whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief. DeRosa v. McKenzie, 936 N.W.2d 342, 346 (Minn. 2019).
5. A wrongful-death claim is "purely statutory, as common law recognized no such actions on the theory that a claim for personal injuries died with the victim." Ortiz v. Gavenda, 590 N.W.2d 119, 121 (Minn. 1999). When the statute governing a statutorily created cause of action includes a limitations provision, "a plaintiff's failure to comply with the statute of limitations requires the court to dismiss the claim." Ariola v. City of Stillwater, 889 N.W.2d 340, 348 (Minn.App. 2017), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 18, 2017).
6. "When death is caused by the wrongful act or omission of any person or corporation, the trustee appointed . . . may maintain an action therefor if the decedent might have maintained an action, had the decedent lived, for an injury caused by the wrongful act or omission." Minn. Stat. § 573.02, subd. 1 (2022). "Upon written petition by the surviving spouse . . . the [district] court having jurisdiction of [a wrongful-death] action . . . shall appoint a . . . trustee to commence or continue such action and obtain recovery of damages therein." Id., subd. 3 (2022). "[I]t is the trustee who has the exclusive right to maintain" a wrongful-death action. Kolles v. Ross, 418 N.W.2d 733, 738 (Minn.App. 1988), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 1988). To recover damages under section 573.02 for a wrongful death caused by a physician, hospital, or their employee, the trustee must commence the action "within three years of the date of death." Minn. Stat. § 573.02, subd. 1.
7. In Ortiz, the supreme court held that the appointment of a trustee is a condition precedent to bringing a wrongful-death action, and any action filed without is a "legal nullity." 590 N.W.2d at 122-23 (quotation omitted). Further, because filing without a trustee is a "legal nullity," "an amendment to the pleadings to bring the action as trustee after the statutory filing period had expired could not relate back to the original filing." Id. at 120.
8. Husband argues that the supreme court's decision in Ortiz is contrary to section 573.02 and should be overturned. But we are bound by the opinions issued by our supreme court. State v. Curtis, 921 N.W.2d 342, 346 (Minn. 2018) (explaining that "[t]he court of appeals is bound by supreme court precedent"). Husband's petition for appointment of trustee was untimely as it was submitted in July 2022, and the statute of limitations expired on May 6, 2022, which was three years after wife's death. See Minn. Stat. § 573.02, subd. 1 (requiring trustee to commence wrongful-death action within "three years of the date of death").
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.