 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
CHOROSZY v. TSO9/20/1994
nt sides of
the same coin. . . . These are substantive rights recognized by
Nebraska law and protected by its constitution.
Spilker v. City of Lincoln, 238 Neb. 188, 469 N.W.2d 546, 548 (1991) (quoting Givens v. Anchor Packing, Inc., 237 Neb. 565, 466 N.W.2d 771, 773-74 (1991). See also Myrick v. James, 444 A.2d at 994 (statute of limitations balances several competing interests). We hold that the three-year statutory period in which a
II. Equal Protection
The Choroszys further argue that the statute violates the equal protection clauses of both the United States and Maine Constitutions by irrationally distinguishing medical misdiagnosis victims from foreign-object victims. U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Me.Const. art. I, ยง 6. We disagree.
The equal protection clause of the Maine Constitution guarantees rights equivalent to those in the federal Equal Protection Clause. Tri-State Rubbish, Inc. v. Town of New Gloucester, 634 A.2d 1284, 1287 n. 3 (Me. 1993). "Equal protection analysis hinges on the standard of review. If the law at issue infringes a fundamental constitutional right or involves an inherently suspect classification, such as race or religion, then the law is subjected to strict scrutiny." Id. at 1287. Absent a fundamental right or suspect class, we apply the "rational relationship test," and simply inquire whether the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Id.
We have held that the right to pursue a cause of action is not a fundamental right, Maine Medical Ctr. v. Cote, 577 A.2d at 1177, and it is settled that
The distinction between foreign-object plaintiffs and other
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
WATHEN, C.J., CLIFFORD and LIPEZ, JJ., concurring.
Page 1 2 3 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|