Minn. Stat. § 541.07

Section 541.07(1) generally requires a medical malpractice action against a health care provider to be commenced within two years after it accrues.

Lab v. Pn · filed 1995-06-27(1)

A malpractice action against a health care provider generally must be commenced within two years from the date such action accrues. Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) (1992). P.N.'s final date of employment at the clinic was April 7, 1992. L.A.B.'s claims against the clinic would have necessarily arisen during her therapy at the clinic, which occurred between 1989 and March 1992. She did not commence the action until April 11, 1994, more than two years after the action accrued.

Section 541.07(1) gives a patient two years to bring claims arising from a physician’s presurgery misrepresentations when the claims concern informed consent and subsequent treatment.

Paulos v. Johnson · filed 1999-07-20(1)

But Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) requires “all actions against physicians, surgeons, * * * other health care professionals * * * for malpractice, error, mistake or failure to cure” to be commenced within two years. ... In fact, because Johnson made the misrepresentations as precursors to Paulos’s surgery, the claims present a pure informed consent issue.

Section 541.07 excludes medical malpractice actions from its two-year limitations period after the 1999 amendment, leaving those actions subject to section 541.076.

Murphy v. Allina Health System · filed 2003-08-26

The 1999 amendments to section 541.07 expressly created an exception to the two-year limitations provision for medical-malpractice actions by (1) deleting the old language pertaining to malpractice actions; (2) adding section 541.076 to address medical-malpractice actions; and (3) expressly delineating section 541.076 as an exception to the two-year limitations provision.

Section 541.07(2) applies a two-year limitations period to gambling forfeiture actions.

State, Department of Public Safety v. $6,276 in United States Currency · filed 1991-12-10(2)

The two-year statute of limitations of Minn.Stat. § 541.07(2) is applicable to gambling forfeitures under Minn.Stat. § 609.-762.

Section 541.07(2)’s two-year limit for penalties or forfeitures does not apply to Consumer Fraud Law actions because recovery is tied to actual loss.

Estate of Riedel Ex Rel. Mirick v. Life Care Retirement Communities, Inc. · filed 1993-08-24(2)

Thus, the Consumer Fraud Law is not penal in nature, and is not subject to the two-year limitations period of Minn.Stat. § 541.07(2).

Section 541.07(2) provides a two-year period for actions upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture and supports a two-year limit for recovering paid usurious interest.

Farrell v. Wurm (In Re Donnay) · filed 1995-06-28(2)

Section 541.07(2) states that any action “upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture” shall be commenced within two years. ... While § 334.02 may or may not be applicable to actions arising under § 334.011(2), it suggests, as does § 541.07(2), that, under whatever statute, the limitations period is two years for actions to recover usurious interest that has been paid.

Section 541.07(2) gives the state two years to bring a drug forfeiture action, measured here from the final disposition of related criminal proceedings.

Humphrey v. $1109 in United States Currency · filed 1995-10-24(2)

This court decided that the two-year statute of limitations “upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture” applied. Minn.Stat. § 541.07(2) (1990). ... Applying the two-year statute of limitations, running from the final disposition of the criminal proceedings on March 30,1993, the state’s February 23,1994 commencement date was well within the two-year statutory period.

Section 541.07(2) gives a buyer two years to bring a non-signature claim under the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act because the Act’s liability provisions impose a penalty.

Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth Dodge · filed 2002-01-02(2)

The two-year statute of limitations found in Minn.Stat. § 541.07(2) (1994) applies to non-signature claims arising under the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act.

Section 541.07(2) applies a two-year limitations period to claims seeking the penal remedies for usury under §§ 334.03 and 334.05.

Maus v. Toder · filed 2010-01-19(2)

The Court finds § 334.01 and the accompanying remedy provisions in §§ 334.03 and 334.05 are penal in nature. Thus the two-year limitations period set out in § 541.07(2) applies to bar the Maus’s usury claim.

Section 541.07’s two-year limits for wage claims and torts involving personal injury do not apply to claims under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

Manteuffel v. City of North St. Paul · filed 1997-11-18

Because Manteuffel’s data practices act claim, as a liability created by statute, falls within the language of Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(2), and because it is neither a wage claim governed by Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5) nor sufficiently analogous to the torts listed in Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) to qualify as a “tort involving personal injury” for purposes of that statute, the applicable limitations period is six years.

Section 541.07(1)’s two-year limitations period does not govern common-law actions against social hosts permitted by section 340A.801, subdivision 6.

Wollan v. Jahnz · filed 2003-02-11(1)

We disagree with the district court’s determination that subdivision 6 is controlled by the two-year limitations period found in Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) (2002).

Section 541.07(1)’s two-year limitations period does not apply to a whistleblower claim created by statute.

Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools · filed 2014-12-15(1)

Under Sipe, whether appellant’s whistleblower claim is an action “upon a liability created by statute” that is subject to the six-year statute of limitations under section 541.05, subdivision 1(2), or an action for an “other tort resulting in personal injury” that is subject to the two-year statute of limitations under section 541.07(1) depends upon whether the whistleblower claim was created by statute or first existed at common law and was later recognized by statute.

Section 541.07(1)’s two-year limit for other torts resulting in personal injury applies only to causes of action originating at common law, not those created by statute.

Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2013-07-31(1)

We reject STS and Labor Ready’s argument that a wrongful discharge claim under Minn.Stat. § 181.953, subd. 10, falls within section 541.07(1) because we conclude that section 541.07(1) is limited to common law causes of action not created by statute.

Section 541.07(1)’s two-year limit for other torts resulting in personal injury does not apply to a statutory whistleblower claim based on reporting violations of law.

Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools · filed 2016-01-20(1)

It follows that Ford’s claim is “upon a liability created by statute” and that no shorter limitations period “is provided by section 541.07,” Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(2), meaning that the statute of limitations is 6 years.