Hoem v. State

• Decision Date: 14 June 1988
• Docket Number: I-X,No. 87-41,87-41
• Citation: Hoem v. State, 756 P.2d 780 (Wyo. 1988)
• Parties: Sheri I. HOEM, Plaintiff, v. The STATE of Wyoming and The University of Wyoming, acting By and Through The University of Wyoming Student Health Service; T.E. Cronkleton, M.D.; Bertrand N. Honea, M.D.; and Does, inclusive; The Attorney General of the State of Wyoming, or his designee, in his capacity as Director of the Wyoming Medical Review Panel and the Wyoming Medical Review Panel, Defendants.
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 780

756 P.2d 780

Sheri I. HOEM, Plaintiff, v.The STATE of Wyoming and The University of Wyoming, acting By and Through The University of Wyoming Student Health Service; T.E. Cronkleton, M.D.; Bertrand N. Honea, M.D.; and Does I-X, inclusive; The Attorney General of the State of Wyoming, or his designee, in his capacity as Director of the Wyoming Medical Review Panel and the Wyoming Medical Review Panel, Defendants.

No. 87-41.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

June 14, 1988.

John B."Jack" Speight, Blair J. Trautwein and Michael Rosenthal of Hathaway, Speight, Kunz, Trautwein & Barrett, Cheyenne, for plaintiff.

Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., John W. Renneisen, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Karen A. Byrne, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State of Wyo., Atty. Gen. of State of Wyo., or his designee, in his capacity as Director of Wyoming Medical Review Panel and Wyoming Medical Review Panel, defendants.

Nicholas G. Kalokathis of Lathrop & Uchner, P.C., Cheyenne, for University of Wyoming, acting by and through the University of Wyoming Student Health Service and T.E. Cronkleton, M.D., defendants.

W.W. Reeves and M. Greg Carlson of Reeves & Murdock, Casper, for Bertrand N. Honea, M.D., defendant.

Robert W. Tiedeken of Terry W. Mackey, P.C., Cheyenne, for Wyoming Trial Lawyers Ass'n, amicus curiae.

John E. Stanfield of Smith, Stanfield & Scott, Laramie, for Ass'n of Trial Lawyers of America, amicus curiae.

Richard Rideout of Freudenthal, Salzburg, Bonds & Rideout, P.C., Cheyenne, for Wyoming Medical Soc., Inc., Wyoming Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., Wyoming Health Care Ass'n and Wyoming Dental Ass'n, amici curiae.

Before BROWN, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ.

MACY, Justice.

This Court is asked to determine the constitutionality of the Wyoming Medical Review Panel Act, § 9-2-1501 et seq., W.S.1977.We hold that the act is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the stateconstitution.

The act was passed in 1986 for the following purpose:

"[T]o prevent where possible the filing in court of actions against health care providers and their employees for professional liability in situations where the facts do not permit at least a reasonable inference of malpractice and to make possible the fair and equitable disposition of such claims against health care providers as are, or reasonably may be, well founded."Section 9-2-1502, W.S.1977.

The act creates the Wyoming medical review panel and provides that the attorney general or his designee shall serve as director of the panel and shall promulgate rules and regulations to implement the act.Section 9-2-1505, W.S.1977.The act also provides that the panel shall consist of two health care providers, two lawyers, and one lay person.Section 9-2-1508, W.S.1977.The panel is authorized to review all medical malpractice claims against health care providers.No complaint alleging medical malpractice can be filed in court unless a claim has been filed with the panel and a decision has been rendered.Section 9-2-1506, W.S.1977.Under the act, claimants are required to submit a claim setting forth

"[a] statement in reasonable detail of the elements of the health care provider's conduct which are believed to constitute a malpractice claim, the dates the conduct occurred, and the names and addresses of all physicians, dentists and hospitals having contact with the claimant relevant to the claim and all witnesses[.]"Section 9-2-1507(a)(i), W.S.1977.

The claim also must include a statement signed by the claimant authorizing the panel to have access to all medical, dental, and hospital records pertaining to the claim.The act requires the health care provider to answer the claim within 30 days and to submit a statement authorizing the panel to inspect all medical records pertaining to the claim.A hearing must be held within 120 days after the director receives a claim unless the director or the panel finds good cause for delaying the hearing.Section 9-2-1509, W.S.1977.The hearing is informal, and neither the Wyoming Rules of Evidence nor the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act applies.The panel must determine whether there is

"(i)[s]ubstantial evidence that the acts complained of occurred and that they constitute malpractice; and

"(ii)[a] reasonable probability that the patient was injured as a result of the acts complained of."Section 9-2-1510(a), W.S.1977.

Panel deliberations are confidential, and any records kept are to be used solely for compiling statistical data and facilitating ongoing studies of medical malpractice in Wyoming.Sections 9-2-1510 and 9-2-1511, W.S.1977.The panel's decision is not subject to review in court, it is not binding on either party, and it is not admissible at trial.Sections 9-2-1509,9-2-1510, and9-2-1511.

Plaintiff sets forth the following constitutional challenges to the act:

"1.Does the Wyoming Medical Review Panel Act deny 'equal protection' and, as such, violate Article 1, Section 2;Article 1, Section 3;Article 1, Section 6;Article 1, Section 7;Article 1, Section 34 and Article 3, Section 27 of the Wyoming Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution?

"2.Does the Wyoming Medical Review Panel Act unconstitutionally infringe upon the constitutional and inherent power of the Wyoming Supreme Court, in violation of Article 5, Section 2 of the Wyoming Constitution?

"3.Does the Wyoming Medical Review Panel Act unconstitutionally impede free access to courts, in violation of Article 1, Section 6;Article 1, Section 8;Article 1, Section 9 and Article 10, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

"4.Does the required confidentiality of the Panel proceedings and decision violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America and Article 1, Section 6;Article 1, Section 8 and Article 1, Section 20 of the Wyoming Constitution?"

Because our holding as to plaintiff's equal protection claim is dispositive of this appeal, we decline to address the remaining issues set forth by plaintiff.The following constitutional provisions are relevant to plaintiff's equal protection challenge:

Article 1, § 2 of the Wyoming Constitution.

"In their inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all members of the human race are equal."

Article 1, § 3 of the Wyoming Constitution.

"Since equality and the enjoyment of natural and civil rights is only made sure through political equality, the laws of this state affecting the political rights and privileges of its citizens shall be without distinction of race, color, sex, or any circumstance or condition whatsoever other than individual incompetency, or unworthiness duly ascertained by a court of competent jurisdiction."

Article 1, § 6 of the Wyoming Constitution.

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Article 1, § 7 of the Wyoming Constitution.

"Absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority."

Article 1, § 8 of the Wyoming Constitution, in pertinent part.

"All courts shall be open and every person for an injury done to person, reputation or property shall have justice administered without sale, denial or delay."

Article 1, § 34 of the Wyoming Constitution.

"All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation."

Article 3, § 27 of the Wyoming Constitution, in pertinent part.

"The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say: * * * for limitation of civil actions * * *."

Relying upon these provisions, plaintiff claims that the act violates her equal protection rights in that, on the one hand, it singles out a limited class of health care providers for special protection while, on the other hand, it places an added burden on persons injured by health care providers.Plaintiff argues that the act treats medical malpractice victims differently than those injured by the tortious conduct of someone other than a health care provider in that only medical malpractice victims are prohibited from filing a claim for personal injury directly in court.Plaintiff argues that such a classification is arbitrary, unreasonable, and unrelated to the purpose for which the act was passed.

When considering constitutional claims, this Court has applied the following standards:

"It is clear, according to the stance previously adopted by this court, that there must be some difference which furnishes a reasonable basis for different legislation as to different classes, and the differences must not be arbitrary and without just relation to the subject of the legislation.One who assails a classification must carry the burden of showing that it does not rest on a reasonable basis, but is essentially arbitrary."Mountain Fuel Supply Company v. Emerson, Wyo., 578 P.2d 1351, 1354-55(1978)(citations omitted).

"[C]ourts * * * have proceeded upon the assumption that members of the legislature will investigate and determine for themselves whether or not a proposed law will violate the constitution, and accordingly, have adopted the rule that no law will be declared unconstitutional unless it is clearly so."Bell v. Gray, Wyo., 377 P.2d 924, 925-26(1963).

"If any state of facts can be reasonably conceived which sustain[s] the classification, such facts will be assumed."Mountain Fuel Supply Company v. Emerson, 578 P.2d at 1355.

"Although we have a duty to give great deference to legislative pronouncements and to uphold their constitutionality where possible, it is equally imperative that we declare them invalid when they transgress the Wyoming Constitution."Brenner v. City of Casper, Wyo., 723 P.2d 558, 560(1986)(emphasis added).

Applying these standards to the present case, we look first to the state interest intended to be furthered by the act....