Abstract
The Utah Health Care Malpractice Act is on shaky ground under the Utah Constitution. To begin, the Utah Open Courts Clause preserves an historic guarantee of access to the courts and remedy for harm to one's person. The Malpractice Act violates both these provisions. The panel proceeding, as a prerequisite to the court's exercise of jurisdiction, delays and may deny access altogether. Where parties proceed to trial, the panel necessarily impairs remedies available only through formal discovery. The Malpractice Act's damage restrictions abrogate damages that were available at common law for medical malpractice without providing a quid pro quo for the loss of remedy. The questionable legislative purpose and tenuous relationship between the evil to be remedied and the limitations of damages, combined with the Malpractice Act's overall ineffectiveness, make it unlikely that the damage limitations would pass constitutional muster.
Recommended Citation
Brann, Heather
(2001)
"Utah's Medicial Malpractice Prelitigation Panel: Exploring State Constitutional Arguments Against a Nonbinding Inadmissible Procedure,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2000:
No.
2, Article 8.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2000/iss2/8