Allen v. Fisher
Citation | 574 P.2d 1314,118 Ariz. 95 |
Decision Date | 06 December 1977 |
Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 2,2 |
Parties | Howard L. ALLEN, Petitioner, v. Lillian S. FISHER, Judge of the Pima County Superior Court, and CharlesHarter, M.D., real party in interest, Respondents. 2739. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Davis, Eppstein & Tretschok, P. C. by Thomas J. Davis, Tucson, for petitioner.
Chandler, Tullar, Udall & Redhair by Jack Redhair, Tucson, for respondent Charles Harter, M.D.
An order of the respondent court referring petitioner's pending lawsuit against a doctor to a medical liability review panel is the subject of this special action. Since we agree with petitioner that appellate intervention is appropriate, we assume jurisdiction.
Briefly, the procedural chronology is as follows. Petitioners filed suit in superior court on February 24, 1976, against real party in interest Charles Harter, M.D., alleging the doctor's malpractice. On September 7, 1977, Dr. Harter filed a motion for an order referring the complaint to the medical liability review panel. 1 The respondent court granted the motion of Dr. Harter on October 5, 1977.
The sole issue presented here is whether petitioner's claim for medical malpractice against Dr. Harter, filed before the effective date of A.R.S. §§ 12-561 to 12-569 is subject to those statutory provisions. 2 Thus the question becomes Can these statutes be applied to an action pending at the time the statutes became effective? Our answer to this question is in the negative.
It is well established that a statute will have prospective operation only unless it appears that it was intended to have retroactive effect. Stanley v. Stanley, 112 Ariz. 282, 541 P.2d 382 (1975). We find nothing in the new legislation indicating a legislative intent that it was to have retroactive effect. However, statutory changes in procedure or remedies may be applied to proceedings already pending except where the statute affects or impairs vested rights. Merchants Despatch Transportation Corporation v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 20 Ariz.App. 276, 512 P.2d 39 (1973); In re Dos Cabezas Power District (Johnson v. Arizona Public Service Company), 17 Ariz.App. 414, 498 P.2d 488 (1972); Bade v. Drachman, 4 Ariz.App. 55, 417 P.2d 689 (1966).
Litigants do not have a vested right in any given mode of procedure, Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 387 U.S. 556, 87 S.Ct. 1746, 18 L.Ed.2d 954 (1967), and a statute relating solely to procedural law such as burden of proof and rules of evidence can be applied retroactively. United Securities Corporation v. Bruton, 213 A.2d 892 (D.C.App.1965). However, where the new rule is one of substantive law, it cannot be applied retroactively. Gem Corrugated Box Corporation v. National Kraft Container Corporation, 427 F.2d 499 (2nd Cir. 1970); Eskimo Pie Corporation v. Whitelawn Dairies, Inc., 284 F.Supp. 987 (S.D.N.Y.1968); In re Giordano's Estate, 85 Cal.App.2d 588, 193 P.2d 771 (1948).
While there is no precise definition of either term, it is generally agreed that a substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights while a procedural one prescribes the method of enforcing such rights or obtaining redress. Romano v. B. B. Greenberg Co., 108 R.I. 132, 273 A.2d 315 (1971); Ware v. City of Anchorage, 439 P.2d 793 (Alaska 1968). We are of the opinion that at least in one respect the new legislation affected a substantive right and therefore cannot apply to petitioner's claim against Dr. Harter. A.R.S. § 12-565 provides in part:
The collateral source rule is a well-established rule in the law of damages and is an established exception to the general rule that damages in negligence actions must be compensatory. 25 C.J.S. Damages § 99(1). See also, Riexinger v. Ashton Company, 9 Ariz.App. 406, 453 P.2d 235 (1969). In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gaston v. Hunter
...1st Spec.Sess., ch. 1 at 989), would not affect actions initiated before the statute's effective date, Allen v. Fisher, 118 Ariz. 95, 574 P.2d 1314 (Ct.App.1977).26 In the case of a new or unusual procedure, the individual physician's experience and "track record" would seem even more impor......
-
In re Healthback, LLC, Bankruptcy No. 97-22616-BH.
...procedural, or remedial law," which prescribes method of enforcing the rights or obtaining redress for their invasion. Allen v. Fisher, 118 Ariz. 95, 574 P.2d 1314, 1315. The basic law of rights and duties (contract law, criminal law, tort law, law of wills, etc.) as opposed to procedural l......
-
Martin v. Reinstein
...(procedural rules may apply retroactively unless retroactive application would impair vested rights); Allen v. Fisher, 118 Ariz. 95, 96, 574 P.2d 1314, 1315 (App.1977) (same). Even if the changes do apply retroactively, however, this case still raises constitutional issues of first impressi......
-
State ex rel. Grape v. Zach
...of a jurisdictional issue is a substantive matter. See Yost v. Johnson, 591 A.2d 178 (Del.1991). See, also, Allen v. Fisher, 118 Ariz. 95, 574 P.2d 1314 (Ariz.App.1977) (substantive law creates, defines, and regulates rights and duties of parties). Furthermore, we have held that a judge who......