On Sept. 17, the Washington Supreme Court found unconstitutional a state law requiring patients, at the initial filing of a lawsuit, to submit a statement from a medical expert certifying that there was a reasonable basis for the allegations. The court unanimously said the certificate-of-merit statute encroached on the court's ability to set its own procedural rules, violating the separation of powers between the Legislature and the judiciary. In particular, the court found that the law conflicted with an existing rule barring additional verification of a case.
A majority of the court's nine justices also said the measure burdened patients' access to the courts by requiring them to submit evidence supporting their claims without the benefit of the full discovery process to uncover such facts. But two justices disagreed with that part of the ruling, saying the courts and lawmakers have the discretion to impose reasonable restrictions on cases that do not necessarily violate patients' rights. "In this case, the Legislature's interest to curb malpractice insurance costs outweighs the moderate burden on the plaintiff," Justice Barbara A. Madsen wrote. She noted that even without the certificate of merit, patients still must present expert witness testimony later in the litigation process.
Excerpted from amednews.com.
