§
Subdivision 1.Refusal of treatment.
Notwithstanding laws, rules, or orders made or promulgated in response to a national security emergency or peacetime emergency, individuals have a fundamental right to refuse medical treatment, testing, physical or mental examination, vaccination, participation in experimental procedures and protocols, collection of specimens, and preventive treatment programs. An individual who has been directed by the commissioner of health to submit to medical procedures and protocols because the individual is infected with or reasonably believed by the commissioner of health to be infected with or exposed to a toxic agent that can be transferred to another individual or a communicable disease, and the agent or communicable disease is the basis for which the national security emergency or peacetime emergency was declared, and who refuses to submit to them may be ordered by the commissioner to be placed in isolation or quarantine according to parameters set forth in sections 144.419 and 144.4195.
§
Subd. 2.Information given.
Before performing examinations, testing, treatment, or vaccination of an individual under subdivision 1, a health care provider shall notify the individual of the right to refuse the examination, testing, treatment, or vaccination, and the consequences, including isolation or quarantine, upon refusal.
Notes of Decisions
Petra Brokken v. Hennepin Cnty., 140 F.4th 445 (8th Cir. 2025).
· cites it 2× “01 et seq) (MHRA), and wrongful discharge in violation of Minnesota’s Refusal of Treatment statute ( Minn. Stat. § 12.39 ). The district court dismissed the claims, ruling that (1) Brokken failed to plead an adverse employment action, (2) she failed to plausibly plead religious…”
Brokken v. Hennepin Cnty. (D. Minn. 2024).
· cites it 18× “She then filed this action against Hennepin County, alleging she was constructively discharged and bringing claims under Title VII, the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and Minn.…”
Zarn v. Minnesota Dep't of Human Servs. (D. Minn. 2022).
· cites it 8× “) Count IV alleges “Wrongful Violation of Minnesota Refusal of Treatment Statute [ Minn. Stat. § 12.39 ].” (Id. ¶¶ 60-68.) III.”
Zarn v. Minnesota Dep't of Human Servs. (D. Minn. 2025).
· cites it 2× “§ 12112 (d)(4)(a); and that DHS committed a “Wrongful Violation of [the] Minnesota Refusal of Treatment Statute,” Minn. Stat. § 12.39 . (Compl. ¶¶ 42-53.) On October 19, 2022, the Court dismissed Zarn’s MHRA and Wrongful Violation of Minnesota Refusal of Treatment Statute claims.”
Stewart (D. Minn. 2025).
“§ 12.39 ).) But even if his reading of that law is correct, the fact that Minnesota recognizes certain fundamental rights not guaranteed under the federal constitution is irrelevant to a federal due-process claim.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.