Court Opinion

ID: 9684263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:52:14.501977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:54.482057
License: Public Domain

PAGE, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent, yet I agree with much of the reasoning of the majority opinion. I agree that Minn.Stat. § 147.01, subd. 6 (1992) is clear and unambiguous, that the plaintiff class of physicians is liable for the surcharge in 1992 only if the statute is given retroactive effect, and that there is no basis for giving the statute retroactive effect. I further agree that the 1993 amendment, which modifies the substance of the 1992 law and limits retroactive application to pending cases, is suggestive of special legislation that improperly targets the plaintiff class for challenging the State’s unlawful exaction of a surcharge. Thus, I would not impute a benign and legitimate purpose to the law.