Robins Kaplan Justice Report Fall 2020 | VOL. 14 NO. 4

JUSTICE REPORTINSIDE THIS ISSUEREWRITING THE ODDS TOADVANCE ACCESS TO JUSTICEFALL 2020 | VOL. 14 NO. 32REWRITING THE ODDSTO ADVANCE ACCESS TO JUSTICE BY JASON DEPAUW AND SETH ZAWILA INSIDE THIS ISSUE2. REWRITING THE ODDS TO ADVANCE ACCESS TO JUSTICE5. COVID IMMUNITY: NO, NOT THAT KIND OF IMMUNITY6. MASS TORT INVESTIGATIONS7. RECOGNITIONRobins Kaplan is often called on to help parties and their counsel advance complex, and often novel, issues of law that advance access to justice. Our role in a particular case can be direct—we are often retained to brief and argue at both the trial and appellate court level. Our role in a particular case can be far more indirect—we are often retained to advise counsel on the merits of a particular issue and invite them in to moot their arguments in our state-of-the-art courtroom. And our role is often to support the party and their counsel by advancing their position as an amicus participant at the appellate level. Recently, our team at Robins Kaplan has secured victories on behalf of our clients and those parties we supported in our role as an amicus participant, ensuring the courthouse doors remain open in the pursuit of justice.Marquardt v. Schaffhausen, 941 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. 2020), for example, is a medical malpractice action where Patricia Marquardt suffered a brain injury when she developed an untreated infection after undergoing a knee replacement surgery. Mrs. Marquardt’s trial counsel secured a hard-fought and well-deserved verdict against her orthopedic surgeon. After the verdict, the doctor moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that Mrs. Marquardt’s experts lacked foundation to testify as to the cause of her injuries. The district court denied those motions, but the court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial on the grounds that the experts were not qualified to testify as to causation.Robins Kaplan was retained by the plaintiff’s counsel to brief and argue the case before the Minnesota Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with our client that the district court properly exercised its broad discretion as the gatekeeper of expert evidence to admit the experts’ testimony as to whether the knee surgery SETH ZAWILAJASON DEPAUW3caused Mrs. Marquardt’s brain injury. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of the other issues the doctor raised on appeal. On remand, the court of appeals rejected all of the doctor’s four other arguments and ruled in favor of Mrs. Marquardt, affirming the trial court’s decisions, thus allowing Mrs. Marquardt’s verdict to stand.In another case before the Minnesota Supreme Court, our team at Robins Kaplan, including Jason DePauw, was called on to serve as an amicus participant on behalf of Minnesota Association for Justice (MAJ) in Warren v. Dinter, 926 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 2019). The Court took up the question of whether a hospitalist’s decision to deny a person admission to a hospital could constitute medical malpractice. As amicus, MAJ supported the plaintiff’s position that a hospitalist could, in fact, owe a duty to the patient despite no direct physician-patient relationship. The facts in Warren are tragic. Susan Warren sought treatment from a nurse practitioner in a clinic for various symptoms, including abdominal pain, fever, and chills. The nurse practitioner ran tests, which indicated Ms. Warren had an infection and needed to be hospitalized for treatment. The nurse practitioner called the local hospital to seek Ms. Warren’s admission, and she spoke with the hospital’s hospitalist, Dr. Richard Dinter, whose role was to either admit Ms. Warren to the hospital or advise the nurse practitioner of a different plan. Dr. Dinter, who was the sole gatekeeper to the hospital doors, denied Ms. Warren’s admission to the hospital. She was found dead three days later, having died of sepsis...