 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Huether v. District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana6/20/2000
ommittee's conclusions or decision-making process. The court can simply redact that which is protected and grant plaintiffs access to the portions containing the relevant facts. Adams, 955 P.2d at 1187-88.
The State of Montana, through the Office of the Attorney General, and the Respondent in this case, argue that Adams is unpersuasive because it is based upon a fundamental right found in the Kansas Constitution to full legal redress for all injuries. They argue that although Montana has a similar provision at Article II, Section 16 of the Montana Constitution, we have held that that right is not fundamental and the parameters of the right are as defined by the legislature. See Meech v. Hillhaven West, Inc. (1989), 238 Mont. 21, 776 P.2d 488. Assuming, without agreeing, that the State's and Respondent's position is correct, it has no relevance to the facts in this case because the legislature has not acted to deny victims of negligent medical care, recovery for their injuries. Therefore, the damages sought by the Petitioners in this case are constitutionally protected by Article II, Section 16 and the reasoning in the Adams decision would render the peer review statutes invalid, were they not interpreted in a way that permits discovery by the Petitioners of all facts pertaining to the decedent's care and treatment, regardless of where those facts are kept or how and why they were gathered.
To the extent that the majority opinion permits discovery by the Petitioners of all facts pertaining to the decedent's care and treatment, I concur in that opinion. To the extent that discovery of those facts is limited, I dissent from the majority opinion.
TERRY N. TRIEWEILER
Justice William E. Hunt, Sr. and Justice James C. Nelson, join in the foregoing concurring or dissenting opinion.
WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.
JAMES C. NELSON
|