direct claim in Minnesota

2025Consistent with our holding in Johnson, 7 N.W.3d at 130, we hold that an injured employee may bring a direct claim for medical expenses under the Act related to a compensable work injury that their insurer paid before the injury was found compensable.

2025Rather, “even if a medical provider itself is barred from bringing a claim for medical expenses because it sought to intervene after the statutory deadline [or did not intervene at all], the employee’s right to assert a direct claim for those medical expenses endures.” Id. at 130 .

2009See Wessin v. Archives Corp., 581 N.W.2d 380, 390 (Minn.App.1998), rev’d on other grounds, 592 N.W.2d 460 (Minn. May 13, 1999); see also Wessin, 592 N.W.2d at 464 ; Seitz , 148 Minn, at 87, 181 N.W. at 105 ; Skoglund, 541 N.W.2d at 22 .

1999Finally, as to the claim of unfair prejudice, the court of appeals held that such a claim “is by its nature ordinarily a direct claim.” Id.

2016In order to pursue a direct claim, a shareholder must be able to “allege some injury or harm that is separate and distinct from the injury or harm to the corporation and that is not dependent on the harm to the corporation.” Id.

1999In Northivest Racquet, one of the claims pursued by Northwest Racquet was a direct claim alleging that Deloitte & Touche, auditor for Midwest Federal Savings and Loan Association, had misrepresented in an audit report the value of certain of Midwest Federal’s corporate debentures. 535 N.W.2d at 614-17 .

2017See Seitz I, 181 N.W. at 105 (explaining that the claim is derivative because the “funds diverted should be restored to the corporation”).

2017Gentile v. Rossette, 906 A.2d 91, 100 (Del. 2006) (concluding that claims alleging injury due to “an extraction ... of a portion of the economic value and voting power” from shareholders states a direct claim).

2017Gentile v. Rossette, 906 A.2d 91, 100 (Del. 2006) (concluding that claims alleging injury due to “an extraction ... of a portion of the economic value and voting power” from shareholders states a direct claim).

2017See Agostino v. Hicks, 845 A.2d 1110, 1117 (Del.

2017See, e.g., Feldman v. Cutaia, 951 A.2d 727, 733 (Del. 2008) (explaining that a direct claim rests on “some individualized harm not suffered by all of the stockholders- at large”). 4 Rather, the observation was simply a useful shorthand for the basic questions we addressed: who was injured and who' is entitled to any recovery.

2016See Wenzel v. Mathies, 542 N.W.2d 634, 641 (Minn. App. 1996) (stating that a shareholder who was not given notice of issuance of new shares and not allowed an opportunity to buy the new shares may bring a direct claim), review denied (Minn. Mar. 28, 1996).

2015Brown-Wilbert cited four medical malpractice cases that espoused some variation of the “meaningful disclosure” standard. 732 N.W.2d at 217 ; see also Teffeteller v. Univ. of Minn., 645 N.W.2d 420, 430 (Minn.2002) (requiring the affidavit to provide “more than a sneak preview”); Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., 599 N.W.2d 572, 578 (Minn.1999) (requiring more information than simply identification of the expert or a “general disclosure”); Stroud v. Hennepin Cty.

2015Brown-Wilbert added words to an unambiguous statute, in conflict with the direct instruction from the Legislature on how to interpret its laws: “When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.” Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2014); see also Cty. of Dakota v. Cameron, 839 N.W.2d 700, 709 (Minn.2013) (“[W]e do not add words or phrases to an unambiguous statute.”). 3 Further, the precedent invoked by Brown-Wilbert does not prop up its house of cards.

2015Brown-Wilbert cited four medical malpractice cases that espoused some variation of the “meaningful disclosure” standard. 732 N.W.2d at 217 ; see also Teffeteller v. Univ. of Minn., 645 N.W.2d 420, 430 (Minn.2002) (requiring the affidavit to provide “more than a sneak preview”); Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., 599 N.W.2d 572, 578 (Minn.1999) (requiring more information than simply identification of the expert or a “general disclosure”); Stroud v. Hennepin Cty.

2011See id.

2009See Wessin v. Archives Corp., 581 N.W.2d 380, 390 (Minn.App.1998), rev’d on other grounds, 592 N.W.2d 460 (Minn. May 13, 1999); see also Wessin, 592 N.W.2d at 464 ; Seitz , 148 Minn, at 87, 181 N.W. at 105 ; Skoglund, 541 N.W.2d at 22 .

2009See Wessin v. Archives Corp., 581 N.W.2d 380, 390 (Minn.App.1998), rev’d on other grounds, 592 N.W.2d 460 (Minn. May 13, 1999); see also Wessin, 592 N.W.2d at 464 ; Seitz , 148 Minn, at 87, 181 N.W. at 105 ; Skoglund, 541 N.W.2d at 22 .

2008Boutin v. LaFleur, 591 N.W.2d 711, 714 (Minn.1999) (addressing predatory offender registration requirement in appeal brought by released prisoner seeking declaratory judgment against Commissioner of Corrections to enjoin commissioner from requiring him to register). 3 .

2004See, e.g., Zaske v. Lee, 651 N.W.2d 527, 532-33 (Minn.App.2002) (concluding that imputing knowledge to the county through constructive notice was a direct challenge to the county’s inspection policy for discovering problems with traffic-control devices).

2000See Schwartz, 447 N.W.2d at 424-25 .

1998The Northwest court concluded that Northwest asserted a direct claim based on “specific misrepresentations in the audit report that affected Northwest directly in its decision to purchase the debentures at issue.” Id.; see also Arent, 975 F.2d at 1373 , 1373 n. 2 (applying same character test of Seitz I but noting that “[ijndividual recovery is warranted only if there is a direct injury to the shareholder” and citing cases in which shareholders brought direct actions based on their other relationships with corporation).

1932See Thompson v. Ellenz, 58 Minn. 301 , 59 N. W. 1023 ; Cook v. Kittson, 68 Minn. 474 , 71 N. W. 670 ; Disbrow v. Creamery P. 31.

1932See Thompson v. Ellenz, 58 Minn. 301 , 59 N. W. 1023 ; Cook v. Kittson, 68 Minn. 474 , 71 N. W. 670 ; Disbrow v. Creamery P. 31.