close error phone search menu email event angle-down angle-right plus minus twitter facebook pinterest google-plus linkedin angle-left angle-up youtube location-marker
FOCUSED EXPERTISE FOR WHAT MATTERS.

Gislason & Hunter’s medical malpractice group has a long history of successful representation in various forms of professional malpractice actions in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Our representation in the area of medical malpractice is exclusive to defending medical professionals, health care providers, health systems, and medical groups. We proudly represent hospitals, clinics, medical groups, physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, dentists, nurses, and all manner of healthcare professionals.

When faced with a lawsuit, health care professionals and providers seek experienced, sensitive, and responsive help. Our attorneys have extensive experience in all areas of litigation and regulation. We represent our clients in all venues, including both state and federal district courts and courts of appeal, alternative dispute resolution, and before the boards of professional practice. Our experienced litigators not only understand complex medical and legal issues, but are also able to present those issues to judges, juries, mediators, and boards concisely, clearly, and persuasively.

Many of Gislason & Hunter’s medical malpractice attorneys have been recognized by their peers as leaders in these areas. Those recognitions include being selected to Super Lawyers and Rising Stars by the Minnesota Journal of Law and Politics, inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America by Woodward and White, Minnesota State Bar Association Civil Trial Specialist certification, and the American College of Trial Lawyers.

Areas of Expertise

  • Anesthesia Issues
  • Birth Injuries
  • Dental Malpractice Defense
  • Emergency Room Issues
  • Failure to Diagnose
  • Labor & Employment Services
  • Medical Malpractice Defense
  • Medical Staff Issues & Services
  • Medication Issues
  • Misdiagnosis
  • Nursing Issues
  • OB/GYN Issues
  • Oncology Issues
  • Prescription Issues
  • Professional Liability
  • Regulatory Counsel & Services
  • Surgical Issues

Our accomplished attorneys bring substantial expertise to Medical Malpractice to deliver the very best in service and results.

Attorneys

Cases & Clients

  • Radiation Overdose

    St. Louis County, Minnesota
    Court File No. 69-HI-CV-14-1458

    Claims asserted:  the patient was diagnosed with prostate cancer requiring radiation treatment.  The plaintiff asserted a violation of the standard of care that resulted in an alleged overdose of radiation to nearby structures.  The plaintiff asserted as a result of excessive radiation injuries occurred to the bowel, bladder and colon.  The patient also asserted a failure to provide appropriate informed consent about the risks associated with radiation therapy. Outcome:  Defense verdict, June 2015.

  • TVT Surgical Procedure

    Hennepin County, Minnesota
    Court File No. 27-CV-16-11946

    Claims asserted: the patient underwent a tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) surgical procedure. In litigation the plaintiff asserted the following: (1) the surgeon who performed the TVT procedure lacked the requisite experience violating the standard of care; (2) the surgeon failed to provide appropriate informed consent about the TVT procedure; (3) the surgeon failed to offer a less risky operation in light of the patient’s past medical history; (4) inadequate surgical technique that violated the standard of care resulting in a bowel perforation; (5) inadequate postoperative care and treatment to the patient; and (6) a failure to timely diagnose and treat the postoperative bowel perforation. Outcome: Defense verdict, December 2017.

  • Appropriate Informed Consent

    Hennepin County, Minnesota
    Court File No. 27-CV-08-2264

    Claims asserted: plaintiff asserted that the physician violated the standard of care by failing to determine the maximum depth for proceeding with a tender point injection. Plaintiff asserted that as a result of the negligence they developed bilateral pneumothoraxes which required subsequent hospitalization and ongoing medical care. Further, the plaintiff asserted that the physician failed to provide appropriate informed consent and failed to advise the patient of the risks of the procedure. Outcome: Defense verdict, March 2009.

  • Negligence Due to Failure to Diagnose

    Ramsey County, Minnesota
    Court File No. 62-CV-08-11206

    Claims asserted: plaintiff asserted negligence against a pediatrician for a failure to diagnose and treat a tumor in a pediatric patient. Further, plaintiff asserted a violation of the standard of care in failing to order appropriate radiographic testing which allegedly resulted in a delay in diagnosis and medical treatment. Plaintiff asserted that if the tumor had been diagnosed earlier, the plaintiff would not have suffered subsequent vision loss and neurological deficits. Outcome: Defense verdict, January 2010.

  • Failing to Diagnose Properly

    St. Louis County, Minnesota
    Court File No. 69-HI-CV-14-1458

    Claims asserted: the patient was diagnosed with prostate cancer requiring radiation treatment. The plaintiff asserted a violation of the standard of care that resulted in an alleged overdose of radiation to nearby structures. The plaintiff asserted as a result of excessive radiation injuries occurred to the bowel, bladder and colon. The patient also asserted a failure to provide appropriate informed consent about the risks associated with radiation therapy. Outcome: Defense verdict, June 2015.

  • Laparoscopic Extra Peritoneal Hernia Repair Surgery

    St. Croix County, Wisconsin
    Court File No. 15-CV-556

    Claims asserted: a patient underwent a laparoscopic total extra peritoneal (TEP) hernia repair surgery. In the case the plaintiff claimed that the surgeon violated the standard of care as follows: (1) failure to provide adequate informed consent; (2) failure to offer and perform an open procedure; (3) a failure to note a tear in the peritoneum and repair the tear to the peritoneum; (4) technical errors in the surgical procedure which allegedly caused a bowel injury to the patient; (5) and the medical care which allegedly caused the bowel injury led the patient to develop C. difficile colitis, which ultimately resulted in the patient needing an end ileostomy and developing end-stage kidney disease. Outcome: Defense verdict, September 2017.

  • De-Cannulation

    Ramsey County, Minnesota
    Court File No. 62-CV-11-1552

    Claims asserted: the decedent suffered a stroke which resulted in him being placed in a long-term rehabilitation facility. As a result of the stroke, the patient had a tracheostomy. In order to wean the patient off of the tracheostomy the patient was de-cannulated. It was asserted that the de-cannulation recommended and subsequently performed by the physician was a violation of the standard of care and resulted in respiratory arrest. Plaintiff asserted that the physician, in de-cannulating the patient, caused asphyxia and death. Outcome: defense verdict, November 2012.

  • Tasered While Fleeing the Police

    St. Louis County, Minnesota
    Court File No. 69-DU-CV-13-1077

    Claims asserted: plaintiff was Tasered while fleeing the police. Plaintiff was brought to the emergency department for evaluation. Thereafter, the plaintiff was seen in the clinic for follow-up care. As to both the emergency department physician and family practice physician the plaintiff claimed there was a violation of the standard of care due to an alleged failure to diagnose and treat a traumatic brain injury, a brain contusion with subdural hematomas, and an intracranial hemorrhage. Plaintiff asserted that the failure to diagnose caused the development of visual deficits, lower and upper extremity paralysis, neurologic deficits, and chronic pain. Outcome: Defense verdict, January 2016.

  • Roger Durand, et al. v. Fairview Health Services, 230 F.Supp.3d 959 (D.Minn. 2017)

    Successful summary judgment motion dismissing ADA claim against hospital. Plaintiffs alleged hospital violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act and Minnesota law by failing to provide auxiliary aids for deaf parents during their son’s hospitalization. District Court held that parents received equal opportunity to access the hospital services provided to hearing visitors, and hospital did not discriminate.