Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis, No. A10–1951.

Citation817 N.W.2d 150
Decision Date25 July 2012
Docket NumberNo. A10–1951.
PartiesJohn DOE 76C, Respondent, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF SAINT PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS, Appellant, Diocese of Winona, Appellant.
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding, on foundational reliability grounds, expert testimony on the theory of repressed and recovered memory offered to prove a disability delaying the accrual of a cause of action.

2. The district court did not err when it granted appellants summary judgment.

Jeffrey R. Anderson, Patrick W. Noaker, Michael G. Finnegan, Jeff Anderson & Associates, P.A., Saint Paul, MN, for respondent.

Thomas B. Wieser, Jennifer R. Larimore, Meier, Kennedy & Quinn, Chtd., Saint Paul, MN, for appellant Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis.

Anna Restovich Braun, George F. Restovich & Associates, Rochester, MN, for appellant Diocese of Winona.

Michael J. Ford, Cally R. Kjellberg, Quinlivan & Hughes, P.A., Saint Cloud, MN, for amicus curiae False Memory Syndrome Foundation.

John D. Lamey, III, Lamey Law Firm, P.A., Oakdale, MN, for amicus curiae Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence.

Bruce Jones, Faegre & Benson LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for amicus curiae Minnesota Religious Council.

Thomas S. Deans, Michelle D. Kenney, Knutson, Flynn & Deans, P.A., Mendota Heights, MN, for amicus curiae Minnesota School Boards Association.

Amy J. Russell, Winona, MN, for amici curiae National Child Protection Training Center and National Center for Victims of Crime.

Daniel A. Haws, Stacey E. Ertz, Murnane Brandt, Saint Paul, MN, for amicus curiae Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association.

OPINION

ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice.

This appeal asks us to determine whether John Doe 76C's (Doe) expert testimony on the theory of repressed and recovered memory offered to prove a disability delaying the accrual of his otherwise untimely negligence and fraud claims is admissible. Doe claims the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis and the Diocese of Winona (Dioceses) are liable for his damages resulting from alleged sexual abuse in the early 1980s by a priest under the Dioceses' control. Doe filed this action on April 24, 2006; because his claims are subject to 6–year statutes of limitations, Doe's claims are untimely unless they accrued after April 24, 2000. SeeMinn.Stat. §§ 541.05, subd. 1(6), 541.073 (2010). To support his argument that accrual of his claims was delayed, and that his action was therefore timely, Doe intended to offer general expert testimony on the theory of repressed and recovered memory. The district court concluded that Doe's expert testimony was inadmissible under the FryeMack standard, making Doe's claims untimely, and granted the Dioceses summary judgment. See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923); State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764, 768 (Minn.1980). The court of appeals reversed the summary judgment order, concluding that Doe's expert testimony might be admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 702. We conclude that Doe's expert testimony on the theory of repressed and recovered memory, offered to prove a disability delaying the accrual of a cause of action, is inadmissible under Minn. R. Evid. 702 because it lacks foundational reliability and that as a result Doe's claims are untimely. We therefore reverse the court of appeals.

I.

Doe alleges that Father Thomas Adamson (“Fr. Adamson”) sexually abused him on four separate occasions in 1980 or 1981, when Doe was a teenager. Doe also alleges that the Dioceses knew that Fr. Adamson was a danger to children before Fr. Adamson was assigned to Doe's parish in 1981. Doe claims that the Dioceses are liable for damages stemming from this alleged sexual abuse on two general theories: first, that the Dioceses negligently allowed the abuse to occur, Minn.Stat. § 541.073, subd. 3, and second, that the Dioceses fraudulently concealed the fact that Fr. Adamson was a danger to children from Doe. Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6).

It is undisputed that Fr. Adamson has a history of sexually abusing children and that the Dioceses did not make that history known to the public until the mid–1980s. It is also undisputed that Fr. Adamson and Doe became close acquaintances after Fr. Adamson was assigned to Doe's parish in 1981. Doe claims that Fr. Adamson sexually abused him on four separate occasions in 1980 or 1981. According to Doe, the alleged incidents were brief (each lasting a few seconds) and Doe was fully clothed for three of them. Importantly, Doe claims that, at some unspecified time after these incidents, he repressed his memories of the alleged sexual abuse.

Fr. Adamson's history of abusing children was highly publicized in the mid–1980s when some of his victims sued the Dioceses. See Mrozka v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis, 482 N.W.2d 806 (Minn.App.1992). The local news media extensively covered the allegations against Fr. Adamson in the late–1980s and early–1990s; newspapers ran over 130 articles about Fr. Adamson's wrongful conduct and the Dioceses admitted responsibility for the abuse. See, e.g., Donna Halvorsen, Two Catholic Dioceses Admit Responsibility for Sexual Abuse by Priest, Star Tribune, Nov. 3, 1990, at 01A. Doe's parents learned about the allegations against Fr. Adamson and the Dioceses in the 1980s and discussed the allegations with Doe. Doe testified that he was aware of the sexual abuse problem in the Catholic Church by the 1990s.

Despite his actual knowledge of the sexual abuse problem in the Catholic Church generally, and Fr. Adamson's history of sexual abuse specifically, Doe claims that he did not have reason to bring his claims until 2002 because he repressed the memories of Fr. Adamson's alleged sexual abuse from some unspecified time after the abuse occurred until 2002. Doe testified that in the summer of 2002 he had a series of flashbacks to Fr. Adamson touching Doe's upper thigh. After these flashbacks, Doe began therapy to deal with the rage and anger that he felt because of the memory. After Doe started therapy, he claims that he remembered three other incidents of abuse.

On April 22, 2009, Doe met with Father Thomas Doyle and told him that, at the time of the alleged abuse, he felt emotionally paralyzed, shocked, and isolated, and that at the time of the alleged abuse he felt deathly afraid to tell anyone about the abuse because of his family's close relationship with the Catholic Church and Fr. Adamson.

II.

Doe filed this action on April 24, 2006, claiming that the alleged abuse has, and will continue to, cause Doe emotional and psychological damage, mental health expenses, a loss of income, and a loss of earning capacity. Doe claims that the Dioceses are liable for these damages under theories of negligence, negligent supervision, negligent retention, vicarious liability, fraud, and fraudulent intentional non-disclosure. All of Doe's claims are subject to 6–year statutes of limitations.1

Doe argues that his claims based on alleged abuse in the early 1980s are timely because he repressed the memory of the abuse until the summer of 2002 and, therefore, he could not have known that he had been sexually abused until that time. In order to prove that he could not know or have reason to know that he had claims until 2002, Doe intended to offer expert testimony on the psychological theory of repressed and recovered memory.

FryeMack Hearing

The Dioceses requested a FryeMack hearing to determine the admissibility of Doe's expert testimony regarding repressed and recovered memories. The FryeMack standard governs the admissibility of expert testimony that “involves a novel scientific theory.” Minn. R. Evid. 702; Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800, 814 (Minn.2000). Before FryeMack expert testimony can be admitted, the proponent of the evidence must establish that the underlying scientific evidence “is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community,” and that “the particular scientific evidence in [the case has] foundational reliability.” Goeb, 615 N.W.2d at 814. The Dioceses argued that Doe's evidence relating to the theory of repressed and recovered memory was “novel” “scientific” evidence that was neither generally accepted in the relevant scientific community nor foundationally reliable in an individual case and, therefore, inadmissible under the FryeMack standard. Doe argued that a FryeMack hearing was not required because repressed and recovered memory theory is not novel.2

The district court granted the Dioceses' motion for a FryeMack hearing to determine the admissibility of “the theory of repressed and recovered memory as a basis for tolling the statute of limitations.” The court correctly concluded that, while repressed memory was a basis for the legislature's enactment of the delayed discovery statute, our court had not yet accepted the theory as a basis “for tolling the statute of limitations for an undetermined period.” Because we had yet to scrutinize the theory under the FryeMack standard to decide whether it is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community and there is a “significant body of scientific research on both sides of this issue,” the district court concluded that a FryeMack hearing was required.

The district court then conducted a 3–day FryeMack hearing in June 2009. Doe presented testimony from Dr. James A. Chu, M.D., and Dr. Constance Dalenberg, Ph.D., who testified that repressed and recovered memory theory is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community and foundationally reliable. The Dioceses presented testimony from Dr. Harrison G. Pope, Jr., M.D., Dr. William M. Grove, Ph.D., and Dr. Elizabeth F. Loftus, Ph.D.3 The Dioceses' experts testified that repressed and recovered memory theory is not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community and is foundationally unreliable. Because the testimony from the experts at the FryeMack hearing was crucial to the court's conclusion that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
178 cases
  • Savage v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 4, 2017
    ...'conservative' Frye approach"); Marsh v. Valyou, 977 So.2d 543, 546–51 (Fla. 2007) (adhering to Frye ); Doe v. Archdiocese of St. Paul, Minneapolis, 817 N.W.2d 150, 168 (Minn. 2012) (conducting both Frye and reliability analyses); State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 943 A.2d 114, 136 (2008) (applyi......
  • Sacks v. Univ. of Minn.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • April 26, 2022
    ...64 at 18. Research has identified two cases possibly matching portions of the case Plaintiffs describe: Doe 76C v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis , 817 N.W.2d 150 (Minn. 2012), and Doe 28B v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis , No. C9-99-2164, 2000 WL 781362 (Minn. Ct. App. J......
  • Savage v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 4, 2017
    ...'conservative' Frye approach"); Marsh v. Valyou, 977 So. 2d 543, 546-51 (Fla. 2007) (adhering to Frye); Doe v. Archdiocese of St. Paul, Minneapolis, 817 N.W.2d 150, 168 (Minn. 2012) (conducting both Frye and reliability analyses); State v. Chun, 943 A.2d 114, 136 (N.J. 2008) (applying Frye ......
  • Peterson v. Martinez, A17-0355
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • December 18, 2017
    ...under the relevant provision of the MGDPA, we will not address whether Peterson's waiver was valid. See Doe 76C v. Archdiocese of St. Paul& Minneapolis, 817 N.W.2d 150, 163 (Minn. 2012) (when considering grant of summary judgment, appellate court need not adopt reasoning of district court a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • 50-State Survey of State Court Decisions Supporting Expert-Related Judicial Gatekeeping
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • June 1, 2023
    ...testimony will be helpful to the trier of fact and supported by adequate foundation.” Doe v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis, 817 N.W.2d 150, 167 (Minn. 2012) (citation omitted). This is “gatekeeping” language, as Ly v. North Memorial Medical Center, 2018 WL 1570150 (Minn. App. Apr. 2......
7 books & journal articles
  • Witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2016 Contents
    • July 31, 2016
    ...not meet the Frye or Daubert standards and, therefore, should not be admitted. Cases Doe v. Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis , 817 N.W.2d 150 (Minn. 2012) (citing numerous cases). In a clergy abuse case, the Supreme Court of Minnesota concluded plaintiff’s expert testimony on the th......
  • Witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2017 Contents
    • July 31, 2017
    ...not meet the Frye or Daubert standards and, therefore, should not be admitted. Cases Doe v. Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis , 817 N.W.2d 150 (Minn. 2012) (citing numerous cases). In a clergy abuse case, the Supreme Court of Minnesota concluded plainti൵’s expert testimony on the the......
  • Witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2018 Contents
    • July 31, 2018
    ...not meet the Frye or Daubert standards and, therefore, should not be admitted. Cases Doe v. Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis , 817 N.W.2d 150 (Minn. 2012) (citing numerous cases). In a clergy abuse case, the Supreme Court of Minnesota concluded plainti൵’s expert testimony on the the......
  • Witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2014 Contents
    • July 31, 2014
    ...and, accordingly, was unable timely to bring an action or to file a complaint. Cases Doe v. Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis , 817 N.W.2d 150 (Minn. 2012) (citing numerous cases). In a clergy abuse case, the Supreme Court of Minnesota concluded plaintiff’s expert testimony on the th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT