Minnesota Medical Malpractice Settlement Calculator
Estimate a medical malpractice settlement under Minnesota law. The calculator applies this jurisdiction's own comparative fault rule and damages ceilings, and every figure below is the one our verified data holds, with the statute behind it and the date we checked it.
What Minnesota law does to your claim
Four things in state law shape a malpractice claim: how long you have to file, what must happen before you file, what happens if you were partly at fault, and whether the state puts a ceiling on what a jury can award. Here is what we hold for this one.
Minnesota bars recovery if plaintiff is 51% or more at fault.
Minn. Stat. § 604.01·Source retrieved 2026-07-27
Where expert testimony is needed, an affidavit of expert review served with the summons and complaint, and a second affidavit within 180 days after discovery begins. Minn. Stat. § 145.682, subd. 2 reads: “In an action alleging malpractice, error, mistake, or failure to cure, whether based on contract or tort, against a health care provider which includes a cause of action as to which expert testimony is necessary to establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must: (1) unless otherwise provided in subdivision 3, clause (2), serve upon defendant with the summons and complaint an affidavit as provided in subdivision 3; and (2) serve upon defendant within 180 days after commencement of discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 26.04(a) an affidavit as provided by subdivision 4.” We read this section only, so it is not a complete list of what Minnesota requires before a suit.
Minn. Stat. § 145.682, subd. 2·Last reviewed 2026-10-16
None on record means our verified data holds no figure of this kind for this state. It is not a finding that no limit could apply to your claim.
What partial fault costs you in Minnesota
The same claim, fracture with surgery, several months of recovery, run through the calculator above four times, with nothing changed but the share of fault assigned to the claimant. The numbers are the engine's output, not an editorial claim about what these cases are worth.
One case, run through the calculator above four times with only the claimant's share of fault changed, under Minnesota law. No coverage ceiling is applied, because we would be inventing the at-fault party's policy. These shares illustrate the rule; they are not an estimate of your own fault.
Every Minnesota deadline we hold
A claim can be more than one kind of case, and the clock is different for each. These are the Minnesota periods in our verified data, with the statute behind each one. A deadline is the outside limit, never a target, and other rules can shorten it.
Minnesota's 6 years comes from Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1, which opens “Except where the Uniform Commercial Code otherwise prescribes, the following actions shall be commenced within six years:” and lists, at clause (5), “(5) for criminal conversation, or for any other injury to the person or rights of another, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated;” A shorter section sits beside it. Minn. Stat. § 541.07 opens “Except where the Uniform Commercial Code, this section, section 541.05, 541.073, 541.076, or 604.205 otherwise prescribes, the following actions shall be commenced within two years:” and its clause (1) reads “(1) for libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other tort resulting in personal injury,” The Minnesota Supreme Court has written about both sections. D.M.S. v. Barber, No. C8-00-2227, decided June 13, 2002, was about when the delayed-discovery period for a sexual-abuse claim begins to run. The part of the opinion that begins “We first consider whether D.M.S.’s negligence claims are barred by the statute of limitations.” goes on: “Generally, personal injury actions grounded on negligence must be commenced within the six-year period of limitation provided in Minn. Stat. § 541.05(5) (2000).” Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc., No. A11-2082, decided July 31, 2013, was about a wrongful-discharge claim created by a Minnesota statute. The court wrote that “section 541.07(1) is limited to common law causes of action not created by statute.” and referred to “our interpretation of the phrase “other tort resulting in personal injury” as being limited to common law intentional torts.” Neither case was about an ordinary negligence or product claim, and neither says which period governs yours. Ask a licensed Minnesota attorney which period applies to your claim.
Minn. Stat. 541.05, subd. 1(5)·Last reviewed 2026-07-28
Open the personal injury calculatorMinn. Stat. § 541.076·Source retrieved 2026-07-27
Open the medical malpractice calculatorMinn. Stat. § 573.02, subd. 1·Source retrieved 2026-07-27
Open the wrongful death calculatorMinn. Stat. § 176.151·Source retrieved 2026-07-27
Open the workers compensation calculatorMinnesota's 6 years comes from Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1, which opens “Except where the Uniform Commercial Code otherwise prescribes, the following actions shall be commenced within six years:” and lists, at clause (5), “(5) for criminal conversation, or for any other injury to the person or rights of another, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated;” A shorter section sits beside it. Minn. Stat. § 541.07 opens “Except where the Uniform Commercial Code, this section, section 541.05, 541.073, 541.076, or 604.205 otherwise prescribes, the following actions shall be commenced within two years:” and its clause (1) reads “(1) for libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other tort resulting in personal injury,” The Minnesota Supreme Court has written about both sections. D.M.S. v. Barber, No. C8-00-2227, decided June 13, 2002, was about when the delayed-discovery period for a sexual-abuse claim begins to run. The part of the opinion that begins “We first consider whether D.M.S.’s negligence claims are barred by the statute of limitations.” goes on: “Generally, personal injury actions grounded on negligence must be commenced within the six-year period of limitation provided in Minn. Stat. § 541.05(5) (2000).” Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc., No. A11-2082, decided July 31, 2013, was about a wrongful-discharge claim created by a Minnesota statute. The court wrote that “section 541.07(1) is limited to common law causes of action not created by statute.” and referred to “our interpretation of the phrase “other tort resulting in personal injury” as being limited to common law intentional torts.” Neither case was about an ordinary negligence or product claim, and neither says which period governs yours. Ask a licensed Minnesota attorney which period applies to your claim.
Minn. Stat. 541.05·Last reviewed 2026-07-28
Open the slip and fall calculatorMinnesota's 6 years comes from Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1, which opens “Except where the Uniform Commercial Code otherwise prescribes, the following actions shall be commenced within six years:” and lists, at clause (5), “(5) for criminal conversation, or for any other injury to the person or rights of another, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated;” A shorter section sits beside it. Minn. Stat. § 541.07 opens “Except where the Uniform Commercial Code, this section, section 541.05, 541.073, 541.076, or 604.205 otherwise prescribes, the following actions shall be commenced within two years:” and its clause (1) reads “(1) for libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other tort resulting in personal injury,” The Minnesota Supreme Court has written about both sections. D.M.S. v. Barber, No. C8-00-2227, decided June 13, 2002, was about when the delayed-discovery period for a sexual-abuse claim begins to run. The part of the opinion that begins “We first consider whether D.M.S.’s negligence claims are barred by the statute of limitations.” goes on: “Generally, personal injury actions grounded on negligence must be commenced within the six-year period of limitation provided in Minn. Stat. § 541.05(5) (2000).” Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc., No. A11-2082, decided July 31, 2013, was about a wrongful-discharge claim created by a Minnesota statute. The court wrote that “section 541.07(1) is limited to common law causes of action not created by statute.” and referred to “our interpretation of the phrase “other tort resulting in personal injury” as being limited to common law intentional torts.” Neither case was about an ordinary negligence or product claim, and neither says which period governs yours. Ask a licensed Minnesota attorney which period applies to your claim.
Minn. Stat. §§ 541.05, 347.22·Source retrieved 2026-07-27
Open the dog bite calculatorMinnesota against the rest of the country
Every count below is read from our state-law data across all 51 jurisdictions, so it moves when the data does. What you will not find here is an average settlement figure: the only one we could compute is a model, and a model presented as a measurement is not a fact.
- 24 of the 51 jurisdictions we track apply modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar, and Minnesota is one of them.
- Its 4 years to file is longer than the 2 years that 31 jurisdictions use. Across the 51 jurisdictions the deadline for this case type runs from 1 year to 4 years.
- We have read the official text of 26 jurisdictions' rules on what must come before a malpractice suit, and 25 of them require something: a notice to the provider, an expert's affidavit, certificate or opinion, or a review panel. Minnesota is one of them.
- 23 of the 51 jurisdictions limit medical malpractice non-economic damages in our data and Minnesota is not among them, so an estimate here is not held down by a ceiling we hold.
Comparisons are drawn from the legal levers that actually move a case value, not from closed-case data, which we do not hold. See the full methodology
Minnesota calculators
Minnesota Medical Malpractice questions
Every document behind our state injury law figures, each linked with the date we last read it, is listed on our State Injury Law research sources page.