 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gall v. Mayo Clinic3/20/2001
onal with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary. In re Haggerty, 448 N.W.2d 363, 364 (Minn. 1989). The party challenging a statute must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt a violation of some provision of the Minnesota Constitution. Id.
Appellants contend that section 145.682 violates procedural due process. A challenge to procedural due process requires the reviewing court to weigh the governmental interest at stake, the private interest at stake, and the availability of other procedural safeguards. In re Conservatorship of Foster, 547 N.W.2d 81, 85 (Minn. 1996). The governmental interest here is to eliminate or at least discourage meritless malpractice claims in an effort to reduce increasing insurance premiums and health care costs. Henke v. Dunham, 450 N.W.2d 595, 598 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Mar. 22, 1990). While the statute eliminates the right to bring medical malpractice claims unless a qualified expert testifies to the merit of the claim, it both permits and facilitates the bringing of meritorious malpractice claims.
Appellants' interest is in bringing a malpractice claim. But litigants' interests in bringing claims are necessarily subject to certain restrictions—such as statutes of limitations—even when those claims are indisputably meritorious. Moreover, sectioná145.682 provides procedural safeguards for meritorious malpractice claims. Appellants have not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates the constitutional right to due process.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting appellants' claim that section 145.682 is unconstitutional.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|