Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 145.682 (2026)

Certification Of Expert Review; Affidavit

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Definition.

For purposes of this section, "health care provider" means a physician, surgeon, dentist, or other health care professional or hospital, including all persons or entities providing health care as defined in section 145.61, subdivisions 2 and 4, or a certified health care professional employed by or providing services as an independent contractor in a hospital.

Subd. 2.Requirement.

In an action alleging malpractice, error, mistake, or failure to cure, whether based on contract or tort, against a health care provider which includes a cause of action as to which expert testimony is necessary to establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must: (1) unless otherwise provided in subdivision 3, clause (2), serve upon defendant with the summons and complaint an affidavit as provided in subdivision 3; and (2) serve upon defendant within 180 days after commencement of discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 26.04(a) an affidavit as provided by subdivision 4.

Subd. 3.Affidavit of expert review.

The affidavit required by subdivision 2, clause (1), must be by the plaintiff's attorney and state that:

(1) the facts of the case have been reviewed by the plaintiff's attorney with an expert whose qualifications provide a reasonable expectation that the expert's opinions could be admissible at trial and that, in the opinion of this expert, one or more defendants deviated from the applicable standard of care and by that action caused injury to the plaintiff; or

(2) the expert review required by clause (1) could not reasonably be obtained before the action was commenced because of the applicable statute of limitations. If an affidavit is executed pursuant to this paragraph, the affidavit in clause (1) must be served on defendant or the defendant's counsel within 90 days after service of the summons and complaint.

Subd. 4.Identification of experts to be called.

(a) The affidavit required by subdivision 2, clause (2), must be signed by each expert listed in the affidavit and by the plaintiff's attorney and state the identity of each person whom plaintiff expects to call as an expert witness at trial to testify with respect to the issues of malpractice or causation, the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. Answers to interrogatories that state the information required by this subdivision satisfy the requirements of this subdivision if they are signed by the plaintiff's attorney and by each expert listed in the answers to interrogatories and served upon the defendant within 180 days after commencement of discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 26.04(a).

(b) The parties or the court for good cause shown, may by agreement, provide for extensions of the time limits specified in subdivision 2, 3, or this subdivision. Nothing in this subdivision may be construed to prevent either party from calling additional expert witnesses or substituting other expert witnesses.

(c) In any action alleging medical malpractice, all expert interrogatory answers must be signed by the attorney for the party responding to the interrogatory and by each expert listed in the answers. The court shall include in a scheduling order a deadline prior to the close of discovery for all parties to answer expert interrogatories for all experts to be called at trial. No additional experts may be called by any party without agreement of the parties or by leave of the court for good cause shown.

Subd. 5.Responsibilities of plaintiff as attorney.

If the plaintiff is acting pro se, the plaintiff shall sign the affidavit or answers to interrogatories referred to in this section and is bound by those provisions as if represented by an attorney.

Subd. 6.Penalty for noncompliance.

(a) Failure to comply with subdivision 2, clause (1), within 60 days after demand for the affidavit results, upon motion, in mandatory dismissal with prejudice of each cause of action as to which expert testimony is necessary to establish a prima facie case.

(b) Failure to comply with subdivision 2, clause (2), results, upon motion, in mandatory dismissal with prejudice of each cause of action as to which expert testimony is necessary to establish a prima facie case.

(c) Failure to comply with subdivision 4 because of deficiencies in the affidavit or answers to interrogatories results, upon motion, in mandatory dismissal with prejudice of each action as to which expert testimony is necessary to establish a prima facie case, provided that:

(1) the motion to dismiss the action identifies the claimed deficiencies in the affidavit or answers to interrogatories;

(2) the time for hearing the motion is at least 45 days from the date of service of the motion; and

(3) before the hearing on the motion, the plaintiff does not serve upon the defendant an amended affidavit or answers to interrogatories that correct the claimed deficiencies.

Subd. 7.Consequences of signing affidavit.

The signature of the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney constitutes a certification that the person has read the affidavit or answers to interrogatories, and that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry, it is true, accurate, and made in good faith. A certification made in violation of this subdivision subjects the attorney or plaintiff responsible for such conduct to reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and disbursements.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 127 cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Broehm v. Mayo Clinic Rochester, 690 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Broehm v. Mayo Clinic Rochester, 690 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. 2005). · cites it 201× “The district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss on grounds that appellant had failed to comply with the expert witness disclosure requirements of Minn.Stat. § 145.682 (2004). The court of appeals affirmed, and we granted further review.”

Teffeteller v. Univ. of Minnesota, 645 N.W.2d 420 (Minn. 2002). · cites it 170× “The district court granted appellants' motions for dismissal ruling that respondent's expert was not qualified to testify as to the applicable standard of care and that, even if the expert had the appropriate qualifications, the expert affidavit submitted by respondent failed to…”

Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., 599 N.W.2d 572 (Minn. 1999). · cites it 135× “The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents because Lindberg's September 1996 affidavit of expert identification failed to meet the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 145.682 (1998) and there was no showing of excusable neglect to warrant an extension of…”

Anderson v. Rengachary, 608 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. 2000). · cites it 157× “Anderson served an affidavit of expert identification as required by Minn.Stat. § 145.682, subd. 4 (1998) and, after the 180-day statutory deadline expired, Dr.”

Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Med. Ctr., 457 N.W.2d 188 (Minn. 1990). · cites it 48× “The trial court granted the defendant’s “summary judgment” 1 motion on the grounds that plaintiffs had failed to set out, with the degree of specificity required by Minn.Stat. § 145.682, subd. 4 (1988), the proposed testimony of their expert witness.”

Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 732 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 42× “2002) (reviewing a district court's dismissal of a claim pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 145.682 (2006)). But where a question of law is present, such as statutory construction, we apply a de novo review.”

Judith Rygwall, as Tr. for the Heirs & Next of Kin of Amy Rygwall v. ACR Homes, Inc. d/b/a ..., 6 N.W.3d 416 (Minn. 2024). · cites it 87× “In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 145.682 , subds. 2, 4 (2022), Rygwall provided two expert affidavits to support her claim.”

Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Med. Ctr., 444 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 170× “Appellants contest the trial court's October 24, 1987 determination that they did not comply with the Minn.Stat. § 145.682 (1986) requirement of expert review of medical malpractice claims.”

Stroud v. Hennepin Cnty. Med. Ctr., 556 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. 1996). · cites it 41× “The district court granted summary judgment in favor of HCMC and HFA and dismissed Stroud’s lawsuit because her affidavit of expert identification failed to meet the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 145.682, subd. 4 (1996). The court of appeals reversed the district court’s grant of…”

Tousignant v. St. Louis Cnty., Mn, 615 N.W.2d 53 (Minn. 2000). · cites it 40× “Louis County District Court dismissed Tousig-nant’s action for her failure to submit an affidavit of expert disclosure in compliance with Minn.Stat. § 145.682 (1998). The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.”

Mercer v. Andersen, 715 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 34× “The district court dismissed with prejudice Robert Mercer’s medical-malpractice claims against Steven Andersen and partially dismissed his malpractice claims against the remaining defendants for failure to comply with the expert-review requirements of Minn.Stat. § 145.682…”

Pfeiffer ex rel. Pfeiffer v. Allina Health Sys., 851 N.W.2d 626 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 64× “On February 24, 2012, Allina moved to dismiss the 2011 suit pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 145.682 and, in the alternative, moved for summary judgment arguing in part that Simon’s expert affidavit was deficient.”

Show all 127 citing cases →

— Minn. Stat. § 145.682(2014) — 1 case

Jerry Expose, Jr. v. Thad Wilderson & Assocs., P. A., Nina Mattson, 863 N.W.2d 95 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015).

— Minn. Stat. § 145.682(3)(a) — 1 case

Hughes v. Mayo Clinic, 834 F.2d 713 (8th Cir. 1987).

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.