Mills v. Mayo Clinic

Background

Kathleen Mills went to the emergency department at Mayo Clinic Health System-Red Wing on November 7, 2015, with severe abdominal pain and other symptoms. A computed tomography scan showed severe diverticulitis with an abscess. She was transferred to Mayo Clinic Rochester, where Scott Kelley was the on-duty colorectal surgeon. After reviewing her condition, Mayo Clinic Rochester treated her initially with percutaneous drains rather than surgery. Surgery occurred on December 1, 2015, followed by additional procedures.

The Millses filed three claims: negligence or medical malpractice, loss of consortium, and breach of implied contract. They sought damages including disfigurement, medical costs, increased risk of future injuries, and mental and emotional distress. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the implied-contract claim and on the claim for reimbursement of medical bills.

Breach of Implied Contract

The court applied Minnesota law, under which a contract requires formation, performance of required conditions, a material breach, and damages. Contract formation requires an objective offer, acceptance, and consideration. An implied-in-fact contract may exist when the circumstances clearly and unequivocally show that the parties intended to enter into one.

The Millses argued that an implied contract required the defendants to provide surgical intervention for Kathleen Mills’s complicated diverticulitis. The court found no evidence of an agreement between Kathleen Mills and Kelley, or between her and anyone else at Mayo Clinic Rochester, for surgery only or immediate surgery. The court also found no evidence of a conversation between the doctors establishing such an agreement. Kathleen Mills’s expectations about her treatment, based on statements attributed to the Red Wing physician, showed her subjective intent but did not provide objective evidence of contract formation.

The court therefore concluded that the evidence did not create a genuine dispute of material fact about whether an implied contract existed. It granted the defendants’ motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the breach-of-implied-contract claim.

Medical Expenses

Under Minnesota law, a medical-malpractice plaintiff seeking medical expenses must show that the expenses were reasonably and necessarily incurred because of the alleged malpractice. Expert testimony generally must connect the alleged departure from the medical standard of care to the claimed damages and show that the damages more probably than not resulted from the malpractice.

The Millses initially sought all of Kathleen Mills’s medical bills. Their expert, Dr. Trent Carlson, identified three later surgeries as having been necessitated by the delay in the initial surgery, but also stated that not every later procedure or hospitalization could be attributed to the defendants’ failure to meet the standard of care. Kathleen Mills acknowledged that she could not recover expenses unrelated to the defendants’ negligence and clarified that she sought expenses for the three identified surgeries.

The court did not decide the medical-expense issue at this stage. To clarify which expenses were allegedly caused by malpractice, it ordered Dr. Carlson to submit and serve a supplemental expert report identifying any reasonably and necessarily incurred medical expenses beyond the three later surgeries. The report was due September 30, 2021. The court stated that the parties could file a joint submission if disputes remained.

Disposition

The court ordered that the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was GRANTED IN PART insofar as it sought dismissal of the breach-of-implied-contract claim and DEFERRED IN PART as to the plaintiffs’ claim for medical expenses. Judge Susan Richard Nelson signed the memorandum order and opinion.