 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martinmaas v. Engelmann6/28/2000
o the same subject. But, in construing statutes together it is presumed that the legislature did not intend an absurd or unreasonable result. When the question is which of two enactments the legislature intended to apply to a particular situation, terms of a statute relating to a particular subject will prevail over the general terms of another statute. Moss v. Guttormson, 1996 SD 76, , 551 NW2d 14, 17 (citing US West Communications, Inc. v. Public Util. Comm'n, 505 NW2d 115, 122-23 (SD 1993) (citations omitted)).
[ ] Applying these rules of statutory construction to this case, Engelmann's claim, that the introduction of the hearing transcript violated the confidentiality statutes, has merit. A review of SDCL 36-4-31.5 in the overall context of SDCL ch 36-4 reveals that the goal of the legislature was to protect all confidential information that surfaces during this type of proceeding - not only the physician's information, but patients' information as well. SDCL 36-4-26.1 is especially enlightening. It states in pertinent part:
The proceedings, records, reports, statements, minutes, or any other data whatsoever, of any committee described in ยง 36-4-42, relating to the quality, type, or necessity of care rendered by a member of a hospital medical staff or by hospital personnel, or acquired in the evaluation of the competency, character, experience or performance of a physician, dentist or allied health professional seeking admission or reappointment to the medical staff of a hospital, are not subject to discovery or disclosure under chapter 15-6 or any other provision of law, and are not admissible as evidence in any action of any kind in any court or arbitration forum, except as hereinafter provided.
[ ] This provision indicates that anything related to the "quality, type or necessity of care rendered" or to the "competency, character, experience or performance" of a physician is to remain confidential. When SDCL 36-4-31.5 is considered in pari materia to the rest of SDCL ch 36-4, it becomes clear that the legislature intended for a re-application hearing to remain confidential. The confidential nature of the transcript was even acknowledged by the trial court in its decision to release the transcript.
[ ] Notwithstanding the mandate of the confidentiality statute, Engelmann fails to show how he was prejudiced by the inclusion of this evidence. In his reply brief, Engelmann only makes the general assertion that " ecause the transcript was released and used during the course of the trial, Defendant was prejudiced." He does not specifically explain how he was prejudiced, or what portion of the transcript's disclosure caused him injury. Engelmann and many of the witnesses who testified at trial also testified at the license hearing, therefore there were no surprises contained in the transcript. Moreover, the court did limit use of the transcript for impeachment purposes only, and that is indeed how both sides utilized it. Although confidential information was released, its use was properly limited to only relevant and non-prejudicial information. Under our evidentiary standard of review, the trial court's decision must stand.
[ ] 4. It was not error to allow Plaintiffs to state that Engelmann was no longer a physician.
[ ] Prior to trial Engelmann sought to have any evidence relating to the status of his medical license excluded. The court ruled that Plaintiffs could establish that Engelmann no longer had a medical license; however, they were not allowed to present testimony regarding his attempt to re-acquire his license, the decision by the State Board of Examiners, or any other evidence concerning the reason he was no longer licensed to pr
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|