law of the forum). The court concluded that since physician-patient privilege statutes are evidentiary rules, and evidentiary rules are matters of procedure, they are governed by the laws of the forum state. State v. Heaney, 676 N.W.2d at 707 (citing Jones v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 80 Minn. 488, 491, 83 N.W. 446, 447 (1900)). Thus, the court concluded the evidence is inadmissible under Minnesota’s statute. The court went on to say that even if the physician-patient privilege is more akin to a rule of substantive law than a rule of procedure, under Minnesota’s “better rule of law” choice of substantive law doctrine, the Minnesota physician-patient privilege is the better rule. Heaney, 676 N.W.2d at 707 (citing Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155, 164, 203 N.W.2d 408, 413 (1973) (<HOLDING>)). We believe that neither lex fori nor the
holding in the context of a diversity case that the evidentiary effect accorded the violation of a safety rule is a matter of state law holding that the trial judge rather than the jury makes the determination of whether the defendant violated the implied consent law holding that appellate courts analyze plain error by reference to the law as of the time the appeal is decided rather than the extant law at the time of the disputed trial court ruling holding that in the context of civil tort actions minnesota courts will look to the better rule of law rather than lex loci the law of the place holding that courts apply the procedural law of the forum and the substantive law of the jurisdiction originating the claim