Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-25T20:36:17.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Certificate of Merit Requirement Violates Right of Access to Courts: Washington Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Requiring Expert Certification of Medical Malpractice Claims—Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2021

Crystal Axelrod
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Select Recent Court Decisions
Information
American Journal of Law & Medicine , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 696 - 699
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics and Boston University 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 216 P.3d 374 (Wash. 2009).

2 Putman, 216 P.3d at 379-80.

3 WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 7.70.150 (2006), invalidated by Putman, 216 P.3d at 379-80.

4 See H.B. 2292, 2d Leg., 59th Reg. Sess., 2006 Wash. Sess. Laws. ch. 8 s. 1.

5 § 7.70.150 (1)-(3).

6 § 7.70.150 (5).

7 See Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 8(a); Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 11(a).

8 See Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 81(a) (exempting special proceedings from civil rules).

9 Putman, 216 P.3d at 376.

10 Id. at 379; id. at 377 (“[It is during discovery that] health care workers can be interviewed and procedural manuals reviewed.”).

11 Id. at 377.

12 Id. at 378.

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 Id. at 377.

16 See id. at 378-79 (citing Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 8(a) (requiring only a short and plain statement of the claim and a demand for relief in order to file a lawsuit) and interpreting Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 11(a) as “explicitly limit[ing]” verification of the pleadings to “‘dissolution of marriage, separation, declarations concerning the validity of a marriage, and [related modifications]’”). But see Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 11(a) (“Other pleadings need not, but may be verified or accompanied by affidavit.”) (emphasis added).

17 Putman, 216 P.3d at 379. In a footnote, the court acknowledged that several federal courts have held that certificate of merit requirements are substantive rather than procedural, but distinguished the courts’ forum-shopping concerns from its focus on the separation of powers. See id. at n.4.

18 Id. at 379.

19 Id. at 380.

20 Id.

21 Id. at 380 (Madsen, J., concurring).

22 Id.

23 Id. at 382.

24 Id. at 380.

25 Id. at 382.

26 Id. at 379 (citing Wimley v. Reid, 991 So.2d 135, 138 (Miss. 2008); Summerville v. Thrower, 253 S.W.3d 415, 421 (Ark. 2007); Hiatt v. S. Health Facilities, Inc., 626 N.E.2d 71, 73 (Ohio 1994)). But see McAlister v. Schnick, 588 N.E.2d 1151, 167 (Ill. 1992).

27 Pre-Suit Certificate of Merit Requirement Invalidated by Washington Supreme Court, 18 Health L. Rep. 1261, 1261 (2009)Google Scholar [hereinafter BNA Health Law Reporter].

28 Putman, 216 P.3d at 376.

29 See BNA Health Law Reporter, supra note 28.

30 Editorial, Decision was Correct in State Medical Merit Case, OLYMPIAN (Wash.), Sept. 28, 2009, http://www.theolympian.com/opinion/story/985311.html.

31 Id.

32 The Pop Tort: Seattle Times Says “Certificates of Merit” in Medical Malpractice Cases are Wrong, http://www.thepoptort.com/2009/09/seattle-times-certificates-of-merit-wrong.html (Sept. 21, 2009) (citing Editorial, Unfettered Access to the Courts, Seattle Times, Sept. 20, 2009, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2009896131_edit21court.html) [hereinafter Pop Tort].

33 H.B. 2292, 2d Leg., 59th Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2006).

34 Charles A. Pilcher, M.D., State Supreme Court Accepts Two Important Cases for Review in 2009, Medical Malpractice Issues Through the Eyes of a Physician, http://pilchermd.com/home/medical-malpractice-bulletin/2008/11/23/state-supreme-courtaccepts-two-important-cases-for-review-in-2009 (Nov. 23, 2008, 18:06 EST) (citing Washington State Medical Association Bulletin (Oct. 23, 2008) (no longer available online)).

35 Amy Lynn Sorrel, Certificate-of-Merit Law Struck Down by Washington Supreme Court, Am. Med. News, Oct. 12, 2009, http://www.amaassn.org/amednews/2009/10/12/prsb1012.htm.

36 Press Release, Dana Childers, Executive Dir., Washington Liability Reform Coalition, Washington Supreme Court Dealt Blow to Physician Liability System: Decision Clears the Way for More Lawsuits, http://www.walrc.org/newsletters/PR/091709.shtml (Sept. 17, 2009).

37 See Pop Tort, supra note 33 (“Are you listening Congress and the Obama Administration? Sure hope so!”)

38 See Sorrel, supra note 36.

39 Diane Polscer, Washington's Supreme Court Overturns Law Requiring Plaintiffs to File a Certificate of Merit in All Medical Malpractice Lawsuits, National Insurance Law Forum, http://www.insurancelawforum.com/2009/09/articles/another-category/washingtonssupreme-court-overturns-law-requiring-plaintiffs-to-file-a-certificate-of-merit-in-all-medicalmalpractice-lawsuits (Sept. 24, 2009).

40 See id. (“This [ruling] is a warning for the Legislature to be careful if they are going to create these rules.”); see also Unfettered Access to the Courts, supra note 33 (“Lawmakers wanted to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits; instead, they interfered in the judicial process.”).