X hits on this document





7 / 27

which patients, when and at what cost. The implementing legislation was necessary

to provide hospitals and patients with certainty so that the process could be as

efficient and inexpensive as possible, thus carrying out the voters' overall intent.

Ignoring the ambiguities of the Amendment and in the face of these clearly

unintended results, the court below determined that because the Amendment was

self-executing the Legislature could not enact implementing legislation and

allowed the Amendment 7 disclosure process to be injected into discovery in a

malpractice case.

The lower court erred in both respects. Regardless of whether the

Amendment was self-executing, the Legislature was well within its prerogative in

enacting a statutory scheme to supplement and implement the Amendment in a

way that made it easier for patients and hospitals to understand and apply.

Furthermore, Amendment 7 was never advertised to voters as a means to

assist plaintiffs in malpractice cases through the expansion of discovery rights.

Injecting Amendment 7 disclosure rights into the discovery process leads to results

that are plainly not contemplated by the language of the Amendment itself. The

rules of discovery in legal proceedings would allow co-defendants who are not

"patients," such as physicians who are the subject of the peer review records, to

obtain access to records of "adverse medical incidents" in contravention of the

plain language of the Amendment. In so doing, the Amendment would be applied


Document info
Document views94
Page views94
Page last viewedMon Jan 23 19:33:59 UTC 2017