Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 541.076 (2026)

Health Care Provider Actions

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(a) For purposes of this section, "health care provider" means a physician, surgeon, dentist, occupational therapist, other health care professionals as defined in section 145.61, hospital, or treatment facility.

(b) An action by a patient or former patient against a health care provider alleging malpractice, error, mistake, or failure to cure, whether based on a contract or tort, must be commenced within four years from the date the cause of action accrued.

(c) A counterclaim may be pleaded as a defense to any action for services brought by a health care provider after the limitations described in this section, notwithstanding it is barred by the provisions of this chapter, if the counterclaim belonged to the party pleading it at the time it became barred and was not barred at the time the claim sued on originated, but no judgment on the counterclaim except for costs can be rendered in favor of the party so pleading it.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case: Gomon v. Northland Fam. Physicians, Ltd., 645 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gomon v. Northland Fam. Physicians, Ltd., 645 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. 2002). · cites it 23× “Because we hold that Minn.Stat. § 541.076 (2000) applies retroactively to revive an action that was time-barred before the effective date of the new statute, we reverse.”

Gomon v. Northland Fam. Physicians, Ltd., 625 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 40× “Appellants assert that because their action was commenced after August 1, 1999, the four-year statute of limitations established in Minn. Stat. § 541.076 (Supp.1999) applies.”

Murphy v. Allina Health Sys., 668 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 19× “Respondent countered that his suit was timely because the four-year limitations provision of the medical-negligence statute, Minn.Stat. § 541.076 (Supp.1999), applied, as it was incorporated by reference into Minn.”

Jennifer L. DeCook, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Olmsted Med. Ctr., Inc., Brenda J. Hanson, R.N., & Darlene M. Pratt, R.N., Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Kenneth M. Palmer, M.D., Jack F. Perrone, M.D., Kimberly McKeon, M.D., & Ashley Morrow, R.N., 875 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. 2016). · cites it 8× “Minn. Stat. § 541.076 (b) (2014). The record does not show, nor is it relevant to this appeal, when the DeCooks realized they might have a claim or when they retained attorneys to pursue it.”

Molloy v. Meier, 660 N.W.2d 444 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 12× “Laws 128 , 128, codified at Minn.Stat. § 541.076. Therefore the statute acts retroactively to revive claims that had expired under the previous two-year statute and before the effective date of the new statute.”

Molloy v. Meier, 679 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 2004). · cites it 5× “[4] (a) Does a physician who allegedly fails to test for and diagnose a genetic disorder in an existing child leading to the birth of a subsequent child with that disorder owe a legal duty to the child's parents? (b) When does the statute of limitations begin to run pursuant to…”

MacRae v. Grp. Health Plan, Inc., 753 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 2008). · cites it 6× “Thus, the only question in this case is whether the action satisfies the timing requirement in - Minn. Stat. § 541.076 . 6 . The dissent in Fabio would have construed the 1982-84 examination as part of a continuing course of treatment with the 1986 examination.”

Morton v. DYSTE, 627 N.W.2d 734 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 35× “*736 OPINION RANDALL, Judge The district court denied appellant-physician’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that Minn.Stat. § 541.076 (2000) revived respondent’s time-barred claim.”

Dahlin v. Kroening, 796 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. 2011). · cites it 2× “For example, the Legislature imposes a four-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims, see Minn.Stat. § 541.076 (2010), a ten-year statute of repose for actions based on services or construction to improve real property, see Minn.”

Mercer v. Andersen, 715 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 541.076 (b) (2004). It is undisputed that Mercer did not effect service on Andersen as required by the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.”

In re Disciplinary Action Against Letourneau, 792 N.W.2d 444 (Minn. 2011). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 541.076(b) (2010). . Because Kmart Corporation and Kmart Pharmacies of Minnesota were both named as defendants and had filed for bankruptcy together, we refer to them collectively as “Kmart.”

Broek v. Park Nicollet Health Servs., 660 N.W.2d 439 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “2002) (holding that Minn.Stat. § 541.076 operates retroactively to revive plaintiffs’ claims that would have expired under prior statute, but fell within time limits of new, four-year statute of limitations).”

Show all 29 citing cases →

— Minn. Stat. § 541.076(b) — 10 cases

Molloy v. Meier, 660 N.W.2d 444 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). “Laws 128 , 128, codified at Minn.Stat. § 541.076. Therefore the statute acts retroactively to revive claims that had expired under the previous two-year statute and before the effective date of the new statute.”

Molloy v. Meier, 679 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 2004). “[4] (a) Does a physician who allegedly fails to test for and diagnose a genetic disorder in an existing child leading to the birth of a subsequent child with that disorder owe a legal duty to the child's parents? (b) When does the statute of limitations begin to run pursuant to…”

Jennifer L. DeCook, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Olmsted Med. Ctr., Inc., Brenda J. Hanson, R.N., & Darlene M. Pratt, R.N., Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Kenneth M. Palmer, M.D., Jack F. Perrone, M.D., Kimberly McKeon, M.D., & Ashley Morrow, R.N., 875 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. 2016). “Minn. Stat. § 541.076 (b) (2014). The record does not show, nor is it relevant to this appeal, when the DeCooks realized they might have a claim or when they retained attorneys to pursue it.”

MacRae v. Grp. Health Plan, Inc., 753 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 2008). “Thus, the only question in this case is whether the action satisfies the timing requirement in - Minn. Stat. § 541.076 . 6 . The dissent in Fabio would have construed the 1982-84 examination as part of a continuing course of treatment with the 1986 examination.”

In re Disciplinary Action Against Letourneau, 792 N.W.2d 444 (Minn. 2011). “” Minn.Stat. § 541.076(b) (2010). . Because Kmart Corporation and Kmart Pharmacies of Minnesota were both named as defendants and had filed for bankruptcy together, we refer to them collectively as “Kmart.”

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.