§ 480.051

Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A. · 2014 1 citation

actions in all courts of this state.” Minn. Stat. § 480.051 (2012).

In re the Welfare of R.S. · 2011 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In Re UnitedHealth Group Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation · 2008 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Anderson v. Rengachary · 2000 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Silva v. Maplewood Care Center · 1998 2 citations [Dissent]

TOMLJANOVICH, Justice (dissenting). This court has the inherent and statutory authority to promulgate rules regulating pleadings and procedure in the courts of this state. See Minn. Stat. § 480.051 (1996); State v. Willis, 332 N.W.2d 180, 184 (Minn.1983). However, the majority’s strained application of a rule of civil procedure to an administrative proceeding raises, in my view, serious concerns about the separation of powers, while skirting the important constitutional issue before us. I respectfully dissent. Long ago, this court acknowledged that the legislature could delegate quasi-judicial power over workers’ compensation matters *570to an administrative body. See Breimhorst v. Beckman, 227 Minn. 409, 431-433, 35 N.W.2d 719, 732-34 (1949). Along with the power to enact such enabling legislation, the legislature possesses- the power to determine when it becomes effective. See 2 Norman J. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 33.07 (5th ed. 1993) (“The power to enact laws includes the power to fix a future effective date.”). Our job, as we recently stated, “is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent. We presume that plain and unambiguous statutory, language manifests legislative intent. If statutory language is plain and unambiguous, the court must give it its plain meaning.” In re Welfare of J.M., 574 N.W.2d 717, 721 (Minn.998) (citations omitted). “[T]he letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (1996). I am unpersuaded by the majority’s reliance upon Minn: R. Civ. P. 6.01. Minnesota courts have applied Rule 6.01 only when it is necessary to compute the passage of time. See, e.g., Wertish v. Salvhus, 558 N.W.2d 258, 258 (Minn.1997) (applying Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.01 to statute that required motion to be filed within ten days of the verdict’s entry).1 If the Workers’ Compensation Act, Minn. Stat. eh. 176 (1996), were silent as to when an apportionment proceeding is instituted, it might be permissible for this court to borrow from its rules of civil procedure in an effort to effectuate the legislature’s intent. However, in this case, the legislature plainly and unambiguously provided that the 1995 amendment to Minn. Stat. § 176.191 became “effective for apportionment proceedings instituted after July 1, 1995.” Act of May 25, 1995, eh. 231, art. 2, § 112, 1995 Minn. Laws 1977, 2072.2 The Act also plainly and unambiguously states that “all proceedings under this chapter are initiated by the filing of a written petition * * * with the commissioner,”' Minn. Stat. § 176.271, subd. 1 (Í996), and that “filing” is “completed by the receipt of the document at the * * * department,” id. § 176.275, subd. 1 (1996). The legislature established a date certain, one which does not require us to “compute a period of time” using Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.01 or any other rule promulgated by this court.3 Maplewood’s claim for contribution and/or reimbursement was not received until Monday, July 3, 1995; thus, under the Workers’ Compensation Act, its equitable contribution proceeding was not initiated until that date. The majority fails to explain why a proceeding that was “initiated” on July 3, within the meaning of section 176.271, was not “instituted after July 1,” within the meaning of the 1995 amendment. Surely the word “after” is not ambiguous. Cf. Parkinson v. Branden-burgh, 35 Minn. 294, 296, 28 N.W. 919, 920 (1886) (interpreting an act which provided that it took effect “from and after” the date of passage; holding that the phrase excluded the day the act was passed). I would hold that Maplewood’s petition is subject to the 1995 amendment. *571In its haste to dispose of this appeal, the majority has failed to address the more significant issues presented: whether the arbitration provisions of the 1995 amendment permit an arbitrator to make the legal determination of whether an earlier injury substantially contributed to the later injury, and whether the arbitrator’s decision is “conclusive on the issue of apportionment” to the extent that there is no right of appeal. I would hold that arbitrators may decide the contribution issue, and I would interpret the arbitration provision so as to preserve judicial review of arbitrators’ decisions. The 1995 amendment to section 176.191 in no way limits an arbitrator’s power to determine whether the earlier injury substantially contributed to the later injury. “Generally, * * * arbitrators are the final judges of both law and fact.” Johnson v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 426 N.W.2d 419, 421 (Minn.1988). In only one circumstance — automobile reparation — have we held that an arbitrator is limited to deciding fact issues, and even in that case we stated that it was within the power of the arbitrator, as factfinder, to find a party negligent. See id. at 421-22. In contrast to automobile reparation, an arbitrator making a substantial contribution determination needs only to apply the statute, not interpret it. I see no reason why this determination, like a finding of negligence, cannot be made by an experienced arbitrator. Whether the 1995 amendment violates due process presents a closer question. • The amendment’s reference to the “conclusive” • effect of an arbitrator’s equitable apportionment determination is difficult to square with past statements of this court. We have stated before that “[d]ue process requires notice before judgment and an opportunity to be heard in an orderly proceeding adapted to the nature of the case, and the right of appeal from or review of a decision regarded by a litigant as unjust.” Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co., 220 Minn. 318, 326, 19 N.W.2d 795, 799 (1945) (emphasis added); cf. Breimhorst, 227 Minn, at 433, 35 N.W.2d at 734 (holding that the separation of powers was not violated by the legislature’s delegation of quasi-judicial powers to the predecessor of DLI “as long as the commission’s awards and determinations [were] not only subject to review by certiorari, but lack[ed] judicial finality” absent the entry of judgment by a court). Consistent with our earlier decisions, I would hold that the 1995 amendment preserves the right of judicial review and merely codifies, by use of the word “conclusive,” the deferential standard we ordinarily have employed in reviewing arbitrators’ decisions. See, e.g., State v. Minnesota Ass’n of Prof'l Employees, 504 N.W.2d 751, 754-55 (Minn.1993) (“Every reasonable presumption must be exercised in favor of the finality and-validity of [an] arbitration award:”). STRINGER, Justice (dissenting). I join in the dissent of Justice Tomljano-vich.

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

· 2014 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Pfeiffer ex rel. Pfeiffer v. Allina Health System · 2014 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Ochs v. Streater, Inc. · 1997 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

DeGrande v. Demby · 1995 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Lombardo v. Seydow-Weber · 1995 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Weiler v. Lutz · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Blohm v. Minneapolis Urological Surgeons, P.A. · 1989 2 citations

DECISION Petitioners have failed to establish the requisite elements for a writ of prohibition. Accordingly, petitioners' request is denied. Petition for writ of prohibition denied. SHORT, Judge (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. I would grant the requested writ of prohibition because the *817 trial court improperly exercised its judicial power by allowing a local court rule to abridge or modify a substantive right authorized by statute. Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 5 permits parties and their attorneys "to informally discuss the information or opinion [of a health care provider] with the health care provider if the provider consents." Recognizing that such informal discussions between plaintiff's attorneys and treating physicians have long been common practice, the legislature, in its comprehensive reform of the law affecting professional liability tort claims, sought to establish a comparable right for defense attorneys.[1] The statute clearly does not anticipate court intervention; even if the treating physician refuses to grant the informal discussion, the physician's deposition may be taken "without obtaining a prior court order." The statute also does not impose any time limitation on the party seeking the interview. The defendant only need "mail written notice to the other party at least 15 days before the discussion." Had the legislature wished to impose the deadline urged by respondents, it could have done so explicitly. Absent such express language, and given the legislative intent to give defendants the same access to treating physicians as plaintiffs have, I would decline to read a time limit into the statute. Minn.R.Civ.P. 35.04, which governs the taking of medical depositions, states that such depositions "shall not be taken except upon order of the court. * * *" By contrast, Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 5 authorizes informal discussions and, if necessary, depositions without obtaining a court order. The supreme court has specifically stated that Rule 35 neither contemplates nor prohibits a private, nonadversarial interview by defense counsel of the plaintiff's treating physician. Wenninger v. Muesing, 307 Minn. 405, 412, 240 N.W.2d 333, 337 (1976). Finally, Minnesota law provides that rules of practice or procedure "shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify the substantive rights of any litigant." Minn. Stat. § 480.051 (1988). Because the statute at issue, on its face, grants defense parties and their counsel the right to informally interview health care providers, neither the rules of civil practice nor any local court rule should be interpreted so as to abridge or modify that right. Imposing a time limitation for such discussions clearly modifies the statutory right to conduct informal interviews. This is especially true when, as here, the treating physician agrees to the interview. It appears in the present case that appellants were not particularly diligent in contacting the doctor. I do not suggest that the time frames for discovery imposed by the trial court were in any way restrictive or unreasonable. However, the time limitation for formal discovery specified in local Rule 2.01 would not be affected by allowing the informal interview to take place. Such an interview is outside the scope of the formal discovery rules, although admission of evidence procured would be subject to the court's evidentiary rulings. Similarly, use of a physician's deposition taken after the close of discovery would be subject to the trial court's rulings on admissibility. Thus, at the evidentiary stage, the timeliness of obtaining the evidence may become relevant. The information gathering intent of the statute should not be frustrated, however, by forcing the information gathering into the time frame of the local discovery rules. NOTES [*] Acting as judge of the court of appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 2. [1] Representative Blatz, who introduced the bill, explained that the provision in question "allows defense attorneys the same right that plaintiffs' attorneys have now; and that is that they do not have to go to court in order to meet with the treating physician * * *." Hearing on H.F. 1764 Before the House Judiciary Committee, 74th Leg. Sess. (1986).

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Marriage of Savoren v. Savoren · 1986 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.