How to run Wrongful Death Damages in DocketMath for Minnesota

Step-by-step

This guide shows how to run Wrongful Death Damages in DocketMath for Minnesota (US-MN) using jurisdiction-aware rules. You’ll use DocketMath’s wrongful-death-damages calculator and align its logic with Minnesota’s wrongful death framework under Minn. Stat. § 573.02.

Before you start, open the tool here: /tools/wrongful-death-damages

1) Confirm you’re in the right Minnesota wrongful death mode

1. Open /tools/wrongful-death-damages.
2. Set Jurisdiction to US-MN (Minnesota).
3. Choose the workflow that matches wrongful death damages (not personal injury or survival-injury) so DocketMath applies the wrongful-death structure rather than a survival-injury structure.

Minnesota wrongful death is grounded in Minn. Stat. § 573.02, which provides that when death is caused by a wrongful act or omission, the statutory action may be maintained if the decedent might have maintained an action had they lived. That “tether” is the foundation DocketMath is modeling in its wrongful death framework.

2) Map your case to the statute’s core structure (Minnesota)

Minnesota wrongful death is governed by Minn. Stat. § 573.02. The operative concept in the statute is:

• The action is for death caused by a wrongful act or omission.
• The claim is tied to whether the decedent could have maintained an action had they survived.
• The statute frames the wrongful death “recovery” approach.

Source (statutory link): https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/573.02

How this affects your inputs: organize your DocketMath worksheet to reflect economic harm attributable to the decedent’s death under the wrongful death premise—not as a generic personal injury damages template.

3) Enter economic loss components in DocketMath

In the calculator, you’ll typically provide the decedent’s pre-death earnings/loss assumptions and the duration (horizon) the model will project.

Use this checklist to keep your entries consistent:

• Decedent earnings / income base (gross annual amount or a figure matching how DocketMath expects it)
• Loss horizon / period (the time span the model will project)
• Expected rate adjustments (if DocketMath exposes growth, inflation, or discounting settings)
• Employment/earnings stability assumptions (if the calculator allows selecting assumptions)

How outputs change when you adjust inputs

• Higher income base generally increases projected economic damages.
• Longer loss horizon generally increases totals because more time is modeled.
• Higher growth assumptions generally increase projected future value; higher discount assumptions generally decrease present value (if DocketMath applies discounting).

4) Include wrongful-death loss categories the tool supports

Depending on the calculator configuration, DocketMath may allow additional wrongful-death categories beyond income projection. Enter additional categories only when they match the factual record you’re using for the worksheet.

Use a “source-to-input” approach:

• Each additional damages category has a factual basis you can support with case materials.
• You’re not double-counting the same loss concept (for example, entering an income-loss concept in one field while separately entering the same concept in another field if DocketMath treats them as overlapping).

5) Choose assumptions and document them

DocketMath commonly uses one or more of these assumptions:

• Discount rate / present value timing
• Growth/inflation assumptions
• Start date and duration (loss horizon)

Document your modeling choices so the worksheet is reviewable and consistent. For example:

• You selected a start date tied to the incident date (or date of death) based on your case timeline evidence.
• You used the decedent’s last known employment income level as your baseline.

6) Run the calculation and review the breakdown

After entering inputs:

1. Click Calculate (or the equivalent action in the UI).
2. Review:

   • Overall totals
   • Category-by-category breakdown
   • Any modeled present value effect (if shown)

Then run quick sensitivity checks:

• Change the income base by a known factor (e.g., +10% vs. -10%) and confirm outputs move in a reasonable way.
• Change the loss horizon by 1–2 years and confirm the totals adjust predictably.
• Identify which category drives most of the result so you know what to verify first.

7) Align your worksheet with Minnesota statutory context (and timing rules)

Minnesota’s wrongful death statute does not provide a claim-type-specific limitations or sub-rule within the statute excerpt provided for this brief. In other words:

• Treat the computation structure as the general wrongful death framework under Minn. Stat. § 573.02.
• Do not assume a special sub-category rule for timing/eligibility for a specific wrongful-death subtype because no claim-type-specific sub-rule was identified in the provided statutory text.

(Statutory anchor for the general framework: Minn. Stat. § 573.02, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/573.02.)

Common pitfalls

Wrongful death worksheets most often fail because the modeling doesn’t match the Minn. Stat. § 573.02 wrongful death premise or because inputs overlap.

Pitfall checklist

• Using the wrong calculator mode (personal injury vs. wrongful death). Wrong mode can produce categories that don’t align with wrongful death damages.
• Mixing timelines (incident date vs. date of death) without consistency. Pick a start date you can justify and keep it consistent across inputs.
• Using an incorrect loss horizon. The horizon is usually a major driver—ensure the year count matches your case strategy and evidence.
• Double-counting overlap between categories. If DocketMath separates income loss and other support-related items, confirm you’re not entering the same loss in multiple fields.
• Unclear baseline income (gross vs. net). Make sure your income base matches what DocketMath expects.
• Assumption drift. If you change discount/growth assumptions, review related fields to avoid internal inconsistencies.

Statute-context pitfall (Minnesota)

A common mismatch is treating the worksheet as if it were a survival-injury damages calculation rather than wrongful death under the statute’s wrongful death premise (i.e., anchored to what the decedent could have claimed had they lived).

Try it

Use DocketMath now with a “minimum viable worksheet” to validate the mechanics before you refine numbers.

Quick-start workflow (practical)

1. Go to /tools/wrongful-death-damages.
2. Set jurisdiction to US-MN.
3. Enter only:

   • Income base (decedent earnings)
   • Loss horizon
4. Click Calculate.
5. Review:

   • Category totals
   • Present value effect (if shown)
6. Refine next:

   • Add any additional supported categories (only if you can justify them from your facts)
   • Update discount/growth assumptions if the calculator provides them

Sanity checks to run after your first calculation

• If you increase the income base by a fixed amount, does the total increase in a predictable way?
• If you shorten the loss horizon by 1–2 years, does the total decrease accordingly?
• Does the breakdown clearly show which category drives the majority of the result?

Keep it tied to Minnesota’s statutory premise

As you refine inputs, keep Minn. Stat. § 573.02 front-of-mind: wrongful death exists when death results from a wrongful act or omission, and the action is tethered to what the decedent might have maintained had they lived. Your DocketMath worksheet should represent the economic harm consistent with that premise.

If you want another DocketMath jurisdiction example style to compare against, you can review a worked example here: /blog/example-wrongful-death-damages-philippines.

Related reading

• How to calculate Wrongful Death Damages in Texas — Full how-to guide with jurisdiction-specific rules
• How to calculate Wrongful Death Damages in Philippines — Full how-to guide with jurisdiction-specific rules
• Worked example: Wrongful Death Damages in Philippines — Worked example with real statute citations