Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs...

Larson v. Wasemiller

Supreme Court of Minnesota
738 N.W.2d 300 (2007)


In April 2002, Mary Larson (plaintiff) underwent a gastric bypass operation performed by Dr. James Wasemiller (defendant) and Dr. Paul Wasemiller (defendant). After the procedure, Larson experienced complications and Paul Wasemiller performed a second operation to correct the problems. After the second operation, Larson required emergency surgery and was hospitalized for nearly two months. Larson brought suit against the physicians and St. Francis Medical Center (defendant), arguing that the hospital was negligent in granting surgery privileges to James Wasemiller. Credentialing decisions are made by a hospital’s governing body to determine which physicians are granted hospital privileges and what specific procedures they may perform. The granting of privileges does not create an employment relationship, but instead allows physicians access to the hospital’s facilities and equipment. St. Francis filed a motion to dismiss Larson’s complaint. The district court denied the motion and noted that many other jurisdictions recognized a duty by hospitals to exercise reasonable care in making credentialing decisions. However, the district court certified two questions for the court of appeals: whether Minnesota recognized a common law cause of action against a hospital for negligent credentialing and whether state law limits or immunes a hospital from liability for a claim of negligent credentialing. The court of appeals held that no cause of action for negligent credentialing existed in Minnesota and that, while there was no immunity for a hospital making certain decisions, liability was limited to actions or recommendations not reasonably decided after reasonable inquiry into the pertinent facts of the decision. The court of appeals dismissed Larson’s case. Larson appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Hanson, J.)

Concurrence (Anderson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 410,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,500 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial