Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2008 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Swang v. Hausergreen2 sentences1992A “practical reason” for this termination of treatment rule is that “actionable treat *355 ment does not ordinarily consist of a single act or, even if it does, it is most difficult to determine the precise time of its occurrence.” Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306, 309 , 180 N.W.2d 187, 189 (1970). 1992A “practical reason” for this termination of treatment rule is that “actionable treat *355 ment does not ordinarily consist of a single act or, even if it does, it is most difficult to determine the precise time of its occurrence.” Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306, 309 , 180 N.W.2d 187, 189 (1970). | 3 | 3 |
Murray v. Foxgreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., Murray v. Fox, 300 Minn. 373 , 220 N.W.2d 356 (1974) (applying “single act” exception to cause of action arising from alleged negligent surgical procedure). 2003See, e.g., Murray v. Fox, 300 Minn. 373 , 220 N.W.2d 356 (1974) (applying “single act” exception to cause of action arising from alleged negligent surgical procedure). | 2 | 2 |
Schmit v. Essergreen2 sentences1997See Schmit, 183 Minn. at 359 , 236 N.W. at 625 (adopting the termination of treatment rule despite the general rule that a statute of limitations action in tort begins to run at the time of the negligent act which coincides with the injury). 1997See Schmit, 183 Minn, at 359, 236 N.W. at 625 (adopting the termination of treatment rule despite the general rule that a statute of limitations action in tort begins to run at the time of the negligent act which coincides with the injury). | 2 | 2 |
Haberle v. Buchwaldgreen2 sentences1997Fabio, 504 N.W.2d at 762 ; Haberle v. Buchwald, 480 N.W.2d 351, 354-55 (Minn.App.1992) (explaining that a practical reason for the termination of treatment rule is that actionable treatment does not ordinarily consist of a single act with an easily determined, precise time of occurrence), review denied (Minn. Aug. 4, 1992). 1997Fabio, 504 N.W.2d at 762 ; Haberle v. Buchwald, 480 N.W.2d 351, 354-55 (Minn.App.1992) (explaining that a practical reason for the termination of treatment rule is that actionable treatment does not ordinarily consist of a single act with an easily determined, precise time of occurrence), review denied (Minn. Aug. 4, 1992). | 2 | 2 |
Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinicsgreen2 sentences2008See id. at 428-29 Although Fabio attempted to invoke the termination of treatment rule, we held that any claim relating to the 1982-84 examination was barred because that examination was a discrete act and “not part of a continuing course of treatment” with the 1986 examination. 1998Offerdahl, 426 N.W.2d at 429 . | 1 | 2 |
Ciardelli v. Rindalgreen2 sentences2003When S.F. also tested positive for fragile X, the pediatric clinic at Hennepin Faculty Associates provided Molloy with genetic counseling for her and her other children and offered testing and counseling to all family members. [8] In an exception to the termination-of-treatment rule, the single-act exception holds that the cause of action accrues "at the time the plaintiff sustains damage from that act, absent fraudulent concealment," Ciardelli v. Rindal, 582 N.W.2d 910, 912 (Minn.1998), or "at the time of the negligent act." Doyle v. Kuch, 611 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn.App.2000). 2003In an exception to the termination-of-treatment rule, the single-act exception holds that the cause of action accrues "at the time the plaintiff sustains damage from that act, absent fraudulent concealment,” Ciardelli v. Rindal, 582 N.W.2d 910, 912 (Minn.1998), or "at the time of the negligent act.” Doyle v. Kuch, 611 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Doyle v. Kuchgreen2 sentences2003When S.F. also tested positive for fragile X, the pediatric clinic at Hennepin Faculty Associates provided Molloy with genetic counseling for her and her other children and offered testing and counseling to all family members. [8] In an exception to the termination-of-treatment rule, the single-act exception holds that the cause of action accrues "at the time the plaintiff sustains damage from that act, absent fraudulent concealment," Ciardelli v. Rindal, 582 N.W.2d 910, 912 (Minn.1998), or "at the time of the negligent act." Doyle v. Kuch, 611 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn.App.2000). 2003In an exception to the termination-of-treatment rule, the single-act exception holds that the cause of action accrues "at the time the plaintiff sustains damage from that act, absent fraudulent concealment,” Ciardelli v. Rindal, 582 N.W.2d 910, 912 (Minn.1998), or "at the time of the negligent act.” Doyle v. Kuch, 611 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Zagaros v. Ericksongreen2 sentences2003Zagaros, 558 N.W.2d at 520 (citation omitted). [8] *455 Appellants argue the termination-of-treatment rule should be applied because the facts here are similar to misdiagnosis cases. [9] But these cases deal almost exclusively with litigation by the patient against his or her doctor where the misdiagnosis causes the plaintiff damage. 2003Zagaros, 558 N.W.2d at 520 (citation omitted). 8 Appellants argue the termination-of-treatment rule should be applied because the facts here are similar to misdiagnosis cases. 9 But these cases deal almost exclusively with litigation by the patient against his or her doctor where the misdiagnosis causes the plaintiff damage. | 1 | 1 |
Francis v. Hansinggreen1 sentence1998Francis v. Hansing, 449 N.W.2d 479, 481 (Minn.App.1989), review denied (Minn. Feb. 21, 1990). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
William R. Jewson v. Mayo Clinicgreen1 sentence1990Jewson v. Mayo Clinic, 691 F.2d 405, 411-12 (8th Cir.1982) (Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) and termination of treatment rule withstood scrutiny under equal protection and due process clauses of United States Constitution). | 1 | 1 |
Geraldine Goellner v. Julius Butler, M.D., University of Minnesotagreen2 sentences1988Goellner v. Butler, 836 F.2d 426, 430 (8th Cir.1988). 1988Goellner v. Butler, 836 F.2d 426, 430 (8th Cir.1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fabio v. Bellomo
green
2 sentences1997Fabio, 504 N.W.2d at 762 ; Haberle v. Buchwald, 480 N.W.2d 351, 354-55 (Minn.App.1992) (explaining that a practical reason for the termination of treatment rule is that actionable treatment does not ordinarily consist of a single act with an easily determined, precise time of occurrence), review denied (Minn. Aug. 4, 1992). 1997Fabio, 504 N.W.2d at 762 ; Haberle v. Buchwald, 480 N.W.2d 351, 354-55 (Minn.App.1992) (explaining that a practical reason for the termination of treatment rule is that actionable treatment does not ordinarily consist of a single act with an easily determined, precise time of occurrence), review denied (Minn. Aug. 4, 1992). | 3 | 1997–2008 |
Johnson v. Winthrop Laboratories Division of Sterling Drug, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003Johnson v. Winthrop Labs., 291 Minn. 145, 149 , 190 *443 N.W.2d 77, 80 (1971). 1986The rationale underlying the adoption of the termination rule was set forth by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Johnson v. Winthrop Laboratories Division of Sterling Drug, Inc., 291 Minn. 145 , 190 N.W.2d 77 (1971): “ * * * A policy reason [for the rule] is that a patient must repose reliance upon his physician in the completion of the course of curative treatment, a relationship of trust which inhibits the patient’s ability to discover acts of omission or commission constituting malpractice.” 291 Minn. at 150 , 190 N.W.2d at 80 -81 (citing Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306, 309 , 180 N.W.2d 187, 1 | 2 | 1986–2003 |
Watkins v. Fromm
green
2 sentences1988In Watkins v. Fromm, 108 A.D.2d 233 , 488 N.Y.S.2d 768 (App.Div.1985), the New York court held the termination of treatment doctrine tolls the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice action against physicians alleged to have committed malpractice while members of a medical group, but who have left group practice, provided the patient was treated as a group patient and the subsequent treatment was for the original condition or complications resulting therefrom. 1988In Watkins v. Fromm, 108 A.D.2d 233 , 488 N.Y.S.2d 768 (App.Div.1985), the New York court held the termination of treatment doctrine tolls the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice action against physicians alleged to have committed malpractice while members of a medical group, but who have left group practice, provided the patient was treated as a group patient and the subsequent treatment was for the original condition or complications resulting therefrom. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Bush v. Cress
green
2 sentences1988This case is analogous to Bush v. Cress, 178 Minn. 482 , 227 N.W. 432 (1929), where the plaintiff employed the defendant physician to “attend her in childbirth.” 227 N.W. at 432 . 1988This case is analogous to Bush v. Cress, 178 Minn. 482 , 227 N.W. 432 (1929), where the plaintiff employed the defendant physician to “attend her in childbirth.” 227 N.W. at 432 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Grondahl v. Bulluck
green
2 sentences1987When treatment ceases is a question of fact to be decided by a jury, see Grondahl, 318 N.W.2d at 244 , and is measured from the date of the last treatment by a member of the University staff for the injuries associated with using the IUD. 1987When treatment ceases is a question of fact to be decided by a jury, see Grondahl, 318 N.W.2d at 244 , and is measured from the date of the last treatment by a member of the University staff for the injuries associated with using the IUD. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.