Opinion ID: 2231369
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Affidavit of Expert Disclosure

Text: Section 544.42, subdivision 2(2), requires that an affidavit of expert disclosure be served within 180 days after commencement of the action. The October 15, 2004, affidavit was filed more than 180 days from the commencement of the action and, therefore, it does not satisfy the 180-day requirement. But Brown-Wilbert argues that it filed answers to interrogatories within the 180-day period and that, although those answers contained some deficiencies, they were sufficient to meet the minimum standard for an affidavit of expert disclosure. [2] Brown-Wilbert further argues that any deficiencies in the answers to interrogatories were cured by the October 15 affidavit. More specifically, Brown-Wilbert argues that its answers to the interrogatories were sufficient to meet the minimum standards for an affidavit of expert disclosure, as specified in section 544.42, subdivision 4; that the answers therefore satisfied the 180-day requirement contained in subdivision 2(2); and that any deficiencies in the answers could be cured after notice as provided by subdivision 6. To address Brown-Wilbert's argument, therefore, we must determine what the minimum standards are for an affidavit of expert disclosure to satisfy the 180-day requirement and entitle the plaintiff to notice of any deficiencies and 60 days to satisfy the disclosure requirement. Section 544.42, subdivision 4 describes the requirements for an affidavit of expert disclosureit must (1) be signed by plaintiff's counsel and (2) state the identity of each expert, the substance of the facts and opinions of each expert, and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. Brown-Wilbert's answers to the interrogatories are deficient because, although they are (1) signed by counsel [3] and (2) state the identity of the experts, they fail to state the substance of the facts and opinions of each expert or the grounds for each opinion. The question becomes whether the answers are so deficient that they do not meet the standards for an affidavit of expert disclosure, sufficient to minimally satisfy the 180-day requirement. Accountants argue that answers to interrogatories cannot satisfy the 180-day requirement unless they represent a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements for an affidavit of expert disclosure. Accountants argue that Brown-Wilbert's answers did not represent a good faith attempt to comply because they did not provide specific information for two of the statutory disclosure requirementsthe substance of the facts relied on and opinions reached by each expert and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. The federal district court, construing section 544.42, subdivision 6, in an action brought under that court's diversity jurisdiction, stated that dismissal was not required where an affidavit was  submitted in good faith,  even though the affidavit was not sufficiently specific or procedurally perfect. House v. Kelbel, 105 F.Supp.2d 1045, 1048, 1053 (D.Minn.2000) (emphasis added). But House is unpersuasive because the plaintiff in House did not file any affidavit within 180 days of commencing suit. Id. at 1048. Thus, the reference to good faith attempt in House was dictathe dismissal was based on the failure to file any affidavit, not on a determination that an affidavit was filed but was not filed in good faith. Id. at 1054. The court said: To construe § 544.42, subd. 6(c) to allow for 60 extra days for the plaintiff to provide the affidavit at all would be an absurd result. It would allow the plaintiff to disregard the requirement, and if the defendant failed to move for dismissal, the case would proceed without the plaintiff having met the requirement. If the defendant did file the motion, the court would have to provide a hearing and issue a specific finding that the plaintiff did not provide the affidavit. Then the plaintiff would receive an extra 60 days to do so. This construction of the statute could allow for an excessive amount of time to pass without the plaintiff establishing that the case has merit   . Id. We decline to adopt a good faith standard because it would inject a subjective element into the requirements for an affidavit of expert disclosure. We find nothing in section 544.42 to suggest that subjective elements should be considered. Instead, we read section 544.42, subdivision 4, to describe objective requirements for an affidavit of expert disclosure that can be measured on the face of any document that is claimed to be such an affidavit, without inquiry into counsel's intent. Both parties discuss cases decided under the analogous statute, Minn.Stat. § 145.682 (2006), involving the affidavit requirements for medical malpractice actions. In that context we have said that an affidavit of expert disclosure requires far more information than simply identification of the expert intended to be called at trial or a general disclosure   , and non-affidavit materials, absence of prejudice to defendant, failure of defendant to prove plaintiff's claim is frivolous or failure of defendant to alert plaintiff to the inadequacy of the affidavit of expert identification will not excuse or justify an affidavit of expert identification falling short of the substantive disclosure requirement. Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc., 599 N.W.2d 572, 578 (Minn.1999) (dismissing medical malpractice action); see also Teffeteller, 645 N.W.2d at 430 (dismissing medical malpractice action and stating that the affidavit required under section 145.682, subdivision 4, must give more than a sneak preview of the expert's testimony); Stroud v. Hennepin County Med. Ctr., 556 N.W.2d 552, 555-56 (Minn.1996) (dismissing medical malpractice action and stating that section 145.682 requires that the affidavit contain specific details concerning the expert's expected testimony); Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Med. Ctr., 457 N.W.2d 188, 193 (Minn.1990) (stating that the affidavit or answers to interrogatories must include specific details concerning their experts' expected testimony, including the applicable standard of care, the acts or omissions that plaintiffs allege violated the standard of care and an outline of the chain of causation that allegedly resulted in damage to plaintiffs). But there are differences between sections 544.42 and 145.682 that limit the usefulness of that analogy. As originally enacted in 1986, and as considered in Lindberg, Stroud, and Sorenson, section 145.682 did not have any cure provision. Act of Mar. 25, 1986, ch. 455, § 60, 1986 Minn. Laws 840, 871-72. When section 544.42 was enacted in 1997, it included the cure provisions of subdivision 6, ostensibly for the purpose of avoiding the harsh results that had been reached in Lindberg and Stroud. Although section 145.862 was amended in 2001 to insert a cure provision for medical malpractice claims, making section 145.862 more similar to section 544.42, Act of May 22, 2002, ch. 403, § 1, 2002 Minn. Laws 1706, 1706-07, the amendment to section 145.682 was based on the perception that meritorious medical malpractice claims were being dismissed where the expert disclosure affidavit was only missing some technical information that could be corrected. Sen. debate on S.F. 0936, 82nd Minn. Leg., May 16, 2001 (audio tape) (statement of Sen. Neuville, author of the bill). Accountants' arguments correctly emphasize that sections 145.682 and 544.42 have a common legislative purpose to provide for the early dismissal of frivolous malpractice claims. Brown-Wilbert's arguments correctly emphasize that the cure provisions enacted with section 544.42, and later added to section 145.682, reflect another legislative purposeto avoid the dismissal of meritorious claims over minor technicalities. These arguments focus the issue. It is undoubtedly true that an affidavit may be sufficient to satisfy the 180-day requirement even though it contains minor deficiencies. The existence of the cure provisions in subdivision 6 requires that interpretation. But it is also undoubtedly true that an affidavit is not sufficient to satisfy the 180-day requirement if the deficiencies are so great that it provides no significant information. Any other interpretation would render the 180-day requirement meaningless. The difficulty is to determine where to draw the precise line between these two extremes. Reading the statute as a whole suggests that the affidavit of expert disclosure requires greater information than an affidavit of expert review. The affidavit of expert review is supposed to be served with the complaint and requires the attorney to certify that the attorney has consulted with an expert with adequate qualifications and that the expert has reached the opinion that the defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care in a way that caused the plaintiff's injuries. Section 544.42, subdivision 3(a)(1). An affidavit of expert disclosure, which is not required until 180 days after commencement of the action, must, by comparison and by definition, provide more information than an affidavit of expert review. Section 544.42, subdivisions 3(a)(1), 4(a). Further, if we look to the purpose for section 544.42, to provide a mechanism for the early dismissal of frivolous actions, the minimum standards for such an affidavit should be that it contains meaningful information on each of the issues for which expert testimony will be required at trial to avoid a directed verdict. Although we have not specifically determined what level of expert testimony a plaintiff must provide in order to survive a motion for a directed verdict in an accountant malpractice case, we have done so in the medical and legal malpractice context. [4] We have said that a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the standard of care recognized by the medical community   , (2) that the defendant in fact departed from that standard, and (3) that the defendant's departure from that standard was a direct cause of [the plaintiff's] injuries to establish a prima facie case and create a jury question in a medical malpractice case. Plutshack v. Univ. of Minn. Hosps., 316 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Minn. 1982); cf. Admiral Merchs. Motor Freight v. O'Connor & Hannan, 494 N.W.2d 261, 266 (Minn.1992) (stating that expert testimony is generally required to establish the standard of care applicable to legal malpractice, whether the attorney deviated from that standard, and whether that deviation caused the plaintiff's injury). Thus, in order to survive a motion for directed verdict in an accountant malpractice case, a plaintiff must present expert testimony that identifies the applicable standard of care and opines that the accountant deviated from that standard and that the departure caused the plaintiff's damages. [5] Thus, if the intent of section 544.42 is to avoid the waste of time and money spent on defending against frivolous actions that will ultimately be the subject of a directed verdict, the minimum standards for an affidavit of expert disclosure, sufficient to satisfy the 180-day requirement, must be that the affidavit provide some meaningful information, beyond conclusory statements, that (1) identifies each person the attorney expects to call as an expert; (2) describes the expert's opinion on the applicable standard of care, as recognized by the professional community; (3) explains the expert's opinion that the defendant departed from that standard; and (4) summarizes the expert's opinion that the defendant's departure was a direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries. In reaching this conclusion, we are guided in part by our consideration of the borderline cases in the medical malpractice context under section 145.682. Prior to the amendment of that section to add a cure provision, we struggled with the issue of whether dismissal was justified when an affidavit was timely provided but it failed to fully or technically comply with the statutory requirements. See, e.g., Sorenson, 457 N.W.2d at 193. In Sorenson, we first announced that [i]n borderline cases where counsel for a plaintiff identifies the experts who will testify and give[s] some meaningful disclosure of what the testimony will be, there may be less drastic alternatives to a procedural dismissal. Id., see also Anderson v. Rengachary, 608 N.W.2d 843, 848-49 (Minn.2000), (recognizing the Sorenson borderline exception but holding that the case hardly exemplifie[d] a borderline case because the affidavit has serious deficiencies and does not provide any meaningful disclosure regarding how the standard of care was violated or what that standard required.). Brown-Wilbert argues that, by incorporating the detailed facts and conclusions alleged in the complaint, its answers to interrogatories provide enough meaningful information to meet the minimum standards for an affidavit of expert disclosure and thus to satisfy the 180-day requirement. Although we agree that Brown-Wilbert's complaint contains a detailed description of the factual allegations and draws certain legal conclusions, and makes the conclusory allegation that the Accountants breached the standard of care, it does not identify or define any specific accounting standard of care, state how Accountants deviated from that standard of care, or allege how that deviation caused injury. In Sorenson we said: to satisfy the requirements of the [affidavit of expert disclosure], it is not enough simply to repeat the facts in the hospital or clinic record. The affidavit should set out how the expert will use those facts to arrive at opinions of malpractice and causation. 457 N.W.2d at 192 (emphasis added). Similarly, answers to interrogatories that merely repeat or incorporate the attorney's conclusory allegations about accounting malpractice are not sufficient to meet the minimum standards for an affidavit of expert disclosure. We hold that Brown-Wilbert's answers to interrogatories were not sufficient to meet the minimum standards to satisfy the 180-day requirement in subdivision 2(2) and 4. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the accounting malpractice count.