ST. PAUL, Minn. (Legal Newsline) - Medical malpractice plaintiffs and their lawyers have scored a big win in Minnesota, as the state Supreme Court has ruled their lawsuits are not subject to more stringent requirements than other negligence claims.
The May 10 ruling overturns two lower court rulings and rejects arguments made by ACR Homes, a patient care home sued over failure to send a resident who had inhaled food into her lungs directly to emergency care.
The American Medical Association and Minnesota Defense Lawyers filed amicus briefs for ACR in the case, with the state's plaintiff lawyer group supporting the heirs of the late Amy Rygwall.
Rules passed in 2022 requiring medical malpractice plaintiffs to submit two expert opinions on the issues of malpractice or causation do not require plaintiffs to do more than those in simple negligence cases, the Supreme Court ruled.
"The statute provides that the Subdivision 4 Affidavits must identify the experts expected to testify with respect to 'the issues of malpractice or causation,' including the substance of their facts and opinions and the grounds for their opinions," Justice Paul Thissen wrote.
"There is no indication that the Legislature intended, by this language, to effectuate a sea change in the causation requirement."
The ruling overturned summary judgment to ACR and could lead to a jury trial.
Rygwall lived at an ACR Homes facility. She was non-verbal, used a wheelchair and suffered from daily seizures.
On Dec. 31, 2015, she aspirated and started showing signs of respiratory distress like saliva foaming from her mouth. A staff member chose to drive her to an urgent care that accepted Rygwall's insurance rather than an emergency room.
The urgent care immediately saw her because of the severity of her condition, and Rygwall was taken to a hospital. She died 13 days from related complications, and the lawsuit alleges ACR should've immediately called 911 when learning of her respiratory distress.
One expert report came from a psychologist who managed health and human service organizations, and he testified to standard of care. He could not testify to whether the delay in care caused Rygwall's death.
The other, though, could. Dr. Jacob Keeperman says Rygwall was caused to choke by one of her daily seizures and that a reasonable health care provider would've arranged emergency care.
ACR said Keeperman never offered what specific course of action or treatment was needed nor any timeline of when emergency care could've saved Rygwall's life. A trial court and appeals court agreed and granted summary judgment to ACR.
ACR said med-mal claims require plaintiffs to satisfy a more stringent burden of proof to establish causation than is required in other negligence cases. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding Keeperman sufficiently established causation.
"As long as the jury can reasonably infer from the evidence, without speculation, that the defendant caused the plaintiff's injury (including death), summary judgment is not appropriate," Thissen wrote.
"These principles apply with equal force in medical malpractice cases as thy do in ordinary negligence cases."
Justice G. Barry Anderson agreed but dissented in part to say Dr. Keeperman did not sufficiently allege causation.