 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Estate of McCarthy v. Montana Second Judicial District Court12/9/1999
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Supervisory Control
Argued: March 23, 1999
Submitted: March 25, 1999
This case originated in this Court on the application of the Estate of Dennis McCarthy, M.D. (the Estate), for a writ of supervisory control seeking relief from the order of the Second Judicial District Court, Silver Bow County, denying the Estate's motion for summary judgment. Having accepted supervisory control and heard oral arguments, we reverse the order of the District Court and remand for entry of summary judgment in the Estate's favor.
The issue before us is whether the District Court erred in concluding that § 27-2-205(2), MCA, is unconstitutional as applied in this case.
BACKGROUND
Richard Best (Best) was born prematurely on August 20, 1974. Dr. Dennis McCarthy (McCarthy) placed an umbilical vein catheter in Best shortly after his birth. Best subsequently developed liver problems.
On August 15, 1995, Best filed a complaint against the Estate alleging that McCarthy placed the umbilical catheter--and injected fluids--into Best's hepatic vein, thereby causing severe damage to his liver. The complaint further alleged that McCarthy's actions, as well as his underlying diagnosis, were negligent, constituted medical malpractice and resulted in injuries for which Best requested a variety of damages.
The Estate moved for summary judgment, asserting that Best's complaint was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in § 27-2-205(2), MCA. Best responded that the statute of limitations was unconstitutional because it violated his right to access to the courts guaranteed by Article II, § 16 of the Montana Constitution and his right to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by Article II, § 4 of the Montana Constitution. The District Court concluded that the statute, as applied to Best, violated his constitutional rights both to access to the courts and to equal protection of the laws, and denied the Estate's motion. The Estate subsequently petitioned for a writ of supervisory control, asserting that the District Court erred in concluding the statute was unconstitutional and in denying its motion for summary judgment on that basis.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a district court's ruling on a summary judgment motion de novo, using the same Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., criteria applied by that court. Ross v. City of Great Falls, 1998 MT 276, 9, 291 Mont. 377, 9, 967 P.2d 1103, 9. Typically, our review of a summary judgment ruling entails a determination of whether the party moving for summary judgment established the absence of genuine issues of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Ross, 10; Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P. Here, however, the parties do not dispute the material facts and, consequently, we review only whether the Estate was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, Ross, 10.
The District Court's determination that the Estate was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law was based on its conclusion that the statute at issue violated Best's constitutional rights. Where the resolution of an issue involves questions of constitutional law, we review a district court's interpretation of the law to determine whether it is correct. See Connell v. State, Dept. of Social Services (1997), 280 Mont. 491, 494, 930 P.2d 88, 90.
DISCUSSION
Did the District Court err in concluding that § 27-2-205(2), MCA, is unconstitutional as applied in this case?
The Estate moved the District Court for summary judgment on the basis that, under the plain language of § 27-2-205(2), MCA, Best's complaint alleging
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|