Court Opinion

ID: 9853758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:53:37.012176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:04.081292
License: Public Domain

DIETZEN, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Respondent-trustee asserts subrogation rights she acquired from decedent’s health insurer, which had previously settled and discharged decedent’s outstanding medical bills that exceeded $100,000, for $32,000. The issue in this ease is whether “special damages” under the Wrongful Death Act (WDA), Minn. Stat. § 573.02, subd. 2 (2004), extend beyond the subrogation rights purchased by respondent to include a financial windfall of $68,000, which amount was not paid to discharge the bills. Because I conclude that “special damages” do not extend beyond the amount actually paid to purchase the subrogation rights, I dissent. Two reasons support my conclusion.
First, statutory interpretation results in the conclusion that “special damages” are limited to medical expenses actually paid. The WDA is in derogation of the common law, which barred “a right of recovery for death by wrongful act.” Cashman v. Hedberg, 215 Minn. 463, 466, 10 N.W.2d 388, 390 (1943); see also Hachmann v. Mayo Clinic, 150 F.Supp. 468, 469 (D.Minn.1957) (applying state law) (“The [WDA] is purely a creature of the legislature and is in derogation of the common law.”). Statutes in derogation of the common law are strictly construed. Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320, 327-28 (Minn.2004) (“[I]t is not presumed that the legislature intended to abrogate or modify a rule of the common law on the subject any further than that which is expressly declared or clearly indicated.”) (alteration in original) (quoting 73 Am. Jur. 2d Statutes § 191 (2001)).
In two older cases, the supreme court stated that the WDA “is remedial in character and thus requires a liberal construction.” Shumway v. Nelson, 259 Minn. 319, 322, 107 N.W.2d 531, 533 (1961); Bolinger v. St. Paul & Duluth R.R. Co., 36 Minn. 418, 421, 31 N.W. 856, 857 (1887). But those cases were limited to determining who could bring a cause of action under the WDA and did not address whether the damages allowable under the statute extended to include a windfall recovery. Shumway, 259 Minn. at 323, 107 N.W.2d at 534; Bolinger, 36 Minn. at 421, 31 N.W. at 857. In this case, the dispute is not whether respondent may maintain an action under the WDA, but whether the WDA limits respondent’s damage award to her actual out-of-pocket medical expenses.
According to state law, “[a] cause of action arising out of an injury to the person dies with the person of the party in whose favor it exists, except as provided” by the WDA. MinmStat. § 573.01 (2004). Because decedent’s medical expenses arose out of injuries caused by the wrongful act of another, respondent’s sole remedy to recover those expenses is under the WDA. In short, the decedent’s trustee “may maintain an action for special damages arising out of such injury if the decedent might have maintained an action therefor had the decedent lived.” Minn. Stat. § 573.02, subd. 2 (emphasis added). “Special damages” are not defined by statute. Recent caselaw holds that “special damages” include “those damages to which an exact dollar amount can be assigned, such as medical expenses.” Deal v. Northwood Children’s Home Soc’y, 608 N.W.2d 922, 925 n. 1 (Minn.App.2000), review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000). Clearly, the WDA only provides a limited right of recovery to the decedent’s surviving spouse and dependents. For example, pain and suffering and loss of wage-earning potential are not recoverable. Minn.Stat. § 573.02, subd. 2 (providing that trustee *44may only receive special damages). It is axiomatic that limited statutory rights cannot be expanded beyond their strict construction.
Respondent asks us to interpret “special damages” under the WDA to extend beyond her out-of-pocket expenses to allow a financial windfall of $68,000. The object of all statutory interpretation and construction is to “ascertain and effectuate” the intent of the legislature. Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2004). Here, I discern no legislative intent to provide a financial windfall to respondent that exceeds the actual medical expenses already paid. Consequently, I would not construe legislative intent to abrogate the common law absent a clear legislative intent to do so.
The majority construes the No Fault Act, the collateral-source statute, and collateral-source common law to conclude that respondent is deserving of a financial windfall. But the legislative intent of the No Fault Act and the collateral-source statute, as well as collateral-source common law, do not substitute for the legislative intent of the WDA. See id. Instead, the crux of this case is the statutory interpretation of the WDA. And the WDA creates a limited right of recovery for the surviving spouse and dependents of the decedent. Given that statutes in derogation of common law are to be strictly construed, it follows that respondent is only entitled to “special damages” for the out-of-pocket medical expenses that were paid by decedent’s health insurer.
Second, since respondent is pursuing the subrogation rights of decedent’s health insurer she is only entitled to the rights, as limited by the WDA, that the insurer had to pursue. The subrogation rights restrain respondent’s recovery in two ways. First, the WDA limits the ability of respondent and decedent’s health insurer to recover “special damages” under the WDA. By purchasing the subrogation rights from the medical insurer, respondent cannot evade the limits already imposed by the WDA. Second, as the subro-gee, respondent stands in the place of the health insurer and is entitled to the insurer’s rights and remedies, but is entitled to no further rights. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1467 (8th ed. 2004) (defining subrogation as “[t]he principle under which an insurer that has paid a loss under an insurance policy is entitled to all the rights and remedies belonging to the insured against a third party with respect to any loss covered by the policy”). Since subrogation rights are limited to the amount paid, respondent only purchased the right to pursue the $32,000 that was paid by the medical insurer.
Because I conclude that “special damages” of the WDA do not extend past the subrogation rights that respondent purchased from decedent’s health insurer, I would reverse and remand for the district court to enter judgment for respondent in the amount of $32,000.