Utah Supreme Court Ruling on Medical Malpractice Review Process
In July 2019, the Utah Supreme Court declared a portion of the state’s pre-litigation medical malpractice review panel process under the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers doctrine.
The Utah Legislature passed the Health Care Malpractice Act in 1976 to curb the perceived cost increases in malpractice insurance in Utah. The legislature added a pre-litigation medical review panel to the Act’s requirements in 1985.
The Pre-Litigation Medical Malpractice Case Review
Prelitigation review panels were required under Title 78B, Chapter 3, Part 4, of the Utah Code Annotated in alleged medical liability cases against healthcare providers. The administrative rules applicable to these panels are found in Section R156-78B of the Utah Administrative Code.
The Utah Division of Occupational & Professional Licensing (DOPL) oversees the prelitigation medical malpractice review process. The process requires the plaintiff initiating a medical professional liability action to file a request for panel review within 60 days of filing a notice of intent to commence an action. The request is mailed to all healthcare providers named in the notice and request. Filing a request for a pre-litigation panel review also starts tolling the statute of limitations.
A three-member panel comprises an attorney who serves as chairperson. This lay member is not a healthcare provider, a hospital employee or attorney, and a licensed healthcare provider practicing in the specialty where the respondent healthcare provider practices are tasked with reviewing the case’s merits.
Pre-Litigation Review Panel Process Changes
A meritorious finding by the panel results in a certificate of compliance with the prelitigation requirements, and the claim may be filed with the courts. If a claim was determined to be non-meritorious prior to 2010, the claimant was required to first obtain an expert affidavit in support of the claim before filing a lawsuit.
In 2010, the Utah Legislature amended the prelitigation panel review process so that the DOPL could reject the plaintiff’s expert affidavit and block the lawsuit from proceeding. The Utah Supreme Court found a constitutional flaw in this process.
Vega v. Jordan Valley Medical Center: Utah Supreme Court Decision
In the case of Vega v. Jordan Valley Medical Center, Yolanda Vega attempted to file a medical professional liability lawsuit against Jordan Valley Medical Center on behalf of her deceased husband. The DOPL determined her claim lacked merit. She then acquired an expert affidavit in support of the claim, which the Division determined was inadequate.
Vega filed her lawsuit anyway, and it was dismissed due to a lack of approval by the DOPL. Vega appealed the dismissal, arguing the Utah Health Care Act’s prelitigation requirements violated the separation of powers doctrine of the Utah Constitution. The Utah Supreme Court agreed with Vega’s argument.
The Separation of Powers Doctrine and Its Impact
“We conclude that Utah Code section 78B3-412(1)(b), which requires a certificate of compliance from DOPL in order for a plaintiff, like Ms. Vega, to initiate a malpractice action against a healthcare provider, is unconstitutional,” the Justices wrote in their opinion. “Accordingly, those sections of the Malpractice Act that require a plaintiff to obtain a certificate of compliance prior to filing a lawsuit in the district court must be stricken from the Act. Additionally, we declare the language in Utah Code section 78B-3-423(7), which mandates a dismissal of any malpractice action filed without a certificate of compliance, to be unconstitutional. Because section 423 cannot stand alone or serve a purpose without section 423(7), we find the entirety of section 423 and all language throughout the act that refers to affidavits of merit to be unconstitutional.”
The decision is based on two distinct constitutional provisions: the separation of powers enshrined in Article V of the Utah Constitution and the judicial power vested in Article VII. Under both articles, the DOPL was determined to infringe on the judiciary’s purview.
“While Article V regulates and guides the apportionment of authority and function between the branches of government, the core judicial power vested in the courts by Article VIII is always retained by the judiciary — regardless of whether the party attempting to exercise a core judicial function belongs to another that the “explicit vesting of jurisdiction in the various courts of the state is an implicit prohibition against any attempt to vest such jurisdiction elsewhere,” the Justices wrote. “Additionally, the ‘[c]ore functions or powers of the various branches of government are clearly nondelegable under the Utah Constitution.’ Notably, the core judicial function of courts includes ‘the power to hear and determine controversies between adverse parties and questions in litigation.’”
Implications of the Court’s Ruling on Medical Malpractice Lawsuits
Ultimately, the Utah Supreme Court determined that “allowing DOPL to exercise the core judicial function of ordering the final disposition of claims, like those brought by Ms. Vega, without judicial review” interferes with that which is the sole purview of the courts. Thus, the high court struck down the 2010 portion of the law that outlined the process of a healthcare provider offering an affidavit that is then sent to DOPL. The original DOPL pre-litigation hearing process remains intact.
Utah Supreme Court ruling striking down parts of the state’s pre-litigation review process could significantly impact the landscape of medical malpractice cases. With these legal changes, doctors and healthcare practices in Utah may face increased litigation risks, making comprehensive malpractice insurance more critical than ever.
Recent Updates on Utah’s Medical Malpractice Pre-Litigation Process
Since the 2019 Utah Supreme Court decision that ruled parts of Utah’s pre-litigation medical malpractice process unconstitutional, the pre-litigation review panel remains a requirement, though with modifications to comply with judicial separation of powers. The medical malpractice review process still mandates that cases go before a panel of community, medical, and legal representatives, who informally assess the merits before lawsuits can proceed.
This process prevents meritless suits from advancing, with data showing that around 40% of cases reviewed at institutions like the University of Utah Health do not progress to litigation. While the pre-litigation review aims to streamline case handling and reduce court loads, critics argue it can be costly and burdensome, particularly when cases are labeled “non-meritorious,” forcing claimants to secure an expert affidavit to continue.
Get Your Practice Malpractice Insurance Coverage Today
Despite reforms, debate still persists regarding fairness and accessibility for claimants within this system. Cunningham Group Insurance offers tailored malpractice insurance for doctors to help protect physicians against evolving legal challenges. By customizing coverage to your specific needs, we ensure you’re better prepared for the unexpected, so you can focus on providing care with peace of mind. Get a quote for malpractice insurance today.
