Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 609.612 (2026)

Employment Of Runners

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Definitions.

(a) As used in this section, the following terms have the meanings given.

(b) "Public media" means telephone directories, professional directories, newspapers and other periodicals, radio and television, billboards, and mailed or electronically transmitted written communications that do not involve in-person contact with a specific prospective patient or client.

(c) "Runner," "capper," or "steerer" means a person who for a pecuniary gain directly procures or solicits prospective patients through telephonic, electronic, or written communication, or in-person contact, at the direction of, or in cooperation with, a health care provider when the person knows or has reason to know that the provider's purpose is to perform or obtain services or benefits under or relating to a contract of motor vehicle insurance. The term runner, capper, or steerer does not include a person who solicits or procures clients either through public media, or consistent with the requirements of section 65B.54, subdivision 6.

Subd. 2.Act constituting.

Whoever employs, uses, or acts as a runner, capper, or steerer is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or to a payment of a fine of not more than $6,000, or both. Charges for any services rendered by a health care provider, who violated this section in regard to the person for whom such services were rendered, are noncompensable and unenforceable as a matter of law.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2023 · leading case: United States v. Carlos Luna, 968 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Carlos Luna, 968 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2020). · cites it 6× “Minn. Stat. § 609.612 , subd. 1(c), (2); see Minn.”
Pietsch v. Minnesota Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 683 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2004). · cites it 3× “” Minn.Stat. § 609.612, subd. 1(c) (2002). Under this statute, using "runners" is illegal only when the "runners” are engaged in fraud.”
United States v. Dana Kidd, Jr., 963 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “Minn. Stat. § 609.612 , subdiv. 2. A runner “procures or solicits prospective patients through telephonic, electronic, or written communication, or in-person contact” on behalf of a health care provider “when the person knows or has reason to know that the provider’s purpose is…”
Pietsch v. Minnesota Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 662 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “[2] In 2002, the Minnesota Legislature passed Minn.Stat. § 609.612 (2002), which prohibits the use of runners by healthcare providers when the provider's purpose is to fraudulently perform or obtain services or benefits under or relating to a contract of motor vehicle insurance.”
Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. v. Acute Care Chiropractic Clinic P.A., 88 F. Supp. 3d 985 (D. Minnesota 2015). · cites it 2× “¶ 28 (citing Minn.Stat. § 609.612 (2013).)) Chiropractors who work for the Defendant Clinics are allegedly told that Ibra-him is a “friend of Guzhagin.”
1-800-411-Pain Referral Serv., LLC v. Tollefson, 915 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (D. Minnesota 2012). · cites it 4× “The definition for the terms "runner, cap-per, or steerer, previously defined in Minn. Stat. § 609.612 , subd. 1(c), was likewise amended as follows: (c) "Runner," "capper,” or “steerer: means a person who for a pecuniary gain directly procures or solicits prospective patients…”
United States v. Abdisalan Hussein, 79 F.4th 991 (8th Cir. 2023). · cites it 5× “3d at 927 (quoting Minn. Stat. § 609.612 , subd. 2). After a jury trial, the district court ordered Hussein to pay $187,277 in restitution to the insurance companies he defrauded.”
Mohamed v. Barr (D. Minnesota 2020). · cites it 2× “) On June 6, 2017, Petitioner was convicted in Hennepin County District Court on two counts of “Fraud – Employment of Runners” in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.612 , subd. 2. (Van Der Vaart Decl.”
Mohamed v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2020). “Almost a decade later, in June 2017, a Minnesota state court found Mohamed guilty of insurance fraud for referring two patients to a doctor in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.612, subd. 2. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) detained Mohamed, asserting that he was eligible…”
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.