Mills v. Mayo Clinic

Background

Kathleen Mills sought treatment at Mayo Clinic’s emergency room on November 7, 2015, and was later transferred to Mayo Clinic’s Rochester location, where Dr. Scott Kelley treated her. She alleges that her condition worsened, that Dr. Kelley performed surgery, and that she later required additional surgeries, hospital stays, and rehabilitation. She claims that the defendants’ medical care caused significant injuries, including repeated hospitalizations, additional surgeries, disfigurement, and mental and emotional distress. Wilson Mills alleges loss of consortium.

The complaint asserts medical negligence and breach of an implied contract. The implied-contract claim alleges that the defendants were required to provide a higher level of medical care after Kathleen Mills was transferred to Dr. Kelley.

Motions and applicable rule

The defendants, Mayo Clinic and Dr. Scott Kelley, moved to dismiss under Minnesota Statutes § 145.682, subdivision 2(2), which requires medical-malpractice plaintiffs to serve a qualifying expert affidavit within 180 days after discovery begins. The deadline was initially September 17, 2020, and was later extended by agreement to November 12, 2020.

Dr. Kelley was deposed on October 22, 2020. The plaintiffs’ counsel stated that the deposition transcript was needed for the expert’s review. In the week before the deadline, several attorneys and legal assistants at the firm tested positive for COVID-19, causing what counsel described as a “sudden breakdown in administration.” Counsel received an electronic copy of the deposition transcript on November 12. The expert report was served on November 20, eight days after the deadline. The plaintiffs moved for an extension on December 1.

The statute states that failing to serve the required affidavit results, upon motion, in mandatory dismissal with prejudice of claims requiring expert testimony. The court explained, however, that Minnesota Supreme Court precedent allows the deadline to be extended after expiration when the plaintiff shows excusable neglect. The relevant considerations are a reasonable case on the merits, a reasonable excuse for the delay, diligence after learning of the deadline, and the absence of substantial prejudice to the defendant.

Court’s ruling

The court found excusable neglect. It treated the COVID-19 outbreak and resulting administrative breakdown at plaintiffs’ counsel’s firm as a reasonable excuse. The court also found diligence based on counsel’s email on the deadline date and the later service of the report. Finally, the defendants had not asserted that the delay caused prejudice.

The court therefore found good cause to extend the statutory deadline, denied the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Expert Report. The order did not decide whether the medical-negligence or implied-contract claims ultimately succeed.