Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Minnesota Department of Health, as part of its newborn screening program, collected blood samples of newborn children to test for various disorders. The Department retained the excess blood samples for other uses and allowed outside research organizations to use them to conduct health studies. Nine families (Appellants) sued the State and the Department (Appellees), arguing that the Department violated the Genetic Privacy Act by collecting, using, storing, and disseminating the children's blood samples and test results without obtaining written informed consent. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the blood samples collected and stored by the Department were genetic information subject to the restrictions of the Genetic Privacy Act; and (2) the newborn screening statutes provided an express exception to the Genetic Privacy Act only to the extent that the Department was authorized to administer newborn screening by testing the samples for disorders and to store the test results, and the newborn screening statutes did not expressly authorize the Department to collect, use, store, or disseminate the blood samples for any other use without written consent. View "Bearder v. State" on Justia Law

After suffering a work-related injury, Employee underwent surgery at a hospital owned by HealthEast Care System. The injury required surgical implantation of a spinal cord stimulator. Employer's worker's compensation insurance provider, State Auto Insurance, paid part but not all of the surgical expenses, asserting (1) the withheld portion of the expenses was attributable to a price markup added by HealthEast to the price paid by HealthEast for the implant hardware used in Employee's surgery, and (2) the manufacturer of the implant hardware should be required to charge directly for the implant hardware. The compensation judge found that Employer and State Auto were liable for the unpaid balance. The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) HealthEast could charge for the implant hardware because when more than one health care provider is responsible for the creation of a service, article, or supply, the provider that provides the service, article, or supply in its final form is entitled to charge for it; and (2) a compensation judge does not have the authority to determine a reasonable value of a treatment, service, or supply that is lower than eighty-five percent of the provider's usual or customary charge. View "Troyer v. Vertlu Mgmt. Co." on Justia Law