Professional negligence can leave a person's life or business irreparably damaged. The malpractice attorneys at Newmark Storms are prepared to help you hold negligent professional accountable.
When a doctor or lawyer fails to meet his or her professional standard of care, the patient’s or client’s recourse is through a professional negligence, or malpractice, action. In order to prevent frivolous claims, the legislature provided certain professionals in Minnesota an added layer of protection from suit.
In order to bring suit against any “health care provider” for malpractice, Minnesota Statute § 145.682., subd. 3 requires that a plaintiff produce an initial affidavit of expert review stating that the attorney reviewed the case with an expert who will opine at trial that one or more of the providers deviated from the applicable standard of care and that deviation injured the patient. Section 145.682., subd. 4 requires a plaintiff to produce a second affidavit stating the opinions the expert will provide at trial and the facts the expert relies on to support to those opinions. These rules are applicable to physicians, surgeons, dentists, and other health care professionals and hospitals.
In order to prevail on a medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the standard of care recognized by the medical community as applicable to the particular defendant’s conduct; (2) that the defendant in fact departed from that standard; and (3) that the defendant’s departure from the standard was a direct cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. MacRae v. Grp. Health Plan, Inc., 753 N.W.2d 711, 717 (Minn. 2008).
Minnesota Statute § 544.42 provides the same affidavit requirement for malpractice actions against attorneys, architects, certified public accountants, engineers, land surveyors, landscape architects, geoscientists, and interior designers. In order to bring a legal malpractice claim, for example, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) acts constituting negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damage; and (4) that but for defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action. Jerry’s Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly * Lindgren, Ltd., 711 N.W.2d 811, 816 (Minn. 2006).
Malpractice actions are complicated. However, the attorneys at Newmark Storms have the skill and expertise to see your case through from start to finish. Please contact us for a free consultation today at 612.455.7050.