When the need arises, what should Pennsylvanians consider in choosing a personal injury attorney? Knowledge of the law and extensive experience should be at the top of the list of desired qualifications. Since Powell Law was founded by James Powell, Sr. in 1906, our attorneys have litigated all types of personal injury cases. Whatever the circumstantial cause of an accident, the chances are we’ve seen and litigated it. Our knowledge and experience clearly provide our clients with a unique and unsurpassed advantage.
On Oct. 31, 2019, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the Medical Care Availability And Reduction Of Error (Mcare) Act’s statute of repose, declaring it unconstitutional. Plaintiffs now have more time to file medical malpractice lawsuits in Pennsylvania.
In Yanakos v. UPMC, the issue before the state Supreme Court was whether the Mcare Act’s seven-year statute of repose violated the Remedies Clause under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Like a statute of limitations, a statute of repose cuts off certain legal rights if a plaintiff does not act by a specified deadline. While a statute of limitations focuses on requiring timely action by an injured plaintiff, a statute of repose focuses on immunizing the alleged defendant from long-term liability.
In § 513 of the MCARE Act, it is stipulated that no action asserting a medical professional liability claim may be commenced seven years after the date of alleged malfeasance. However, there are two exceptions – injuries to minors and injuries caused by a foreign object unintentionally left in an individual’s body. Cases involving these circumstances may be brought beyond the seven-year limitation pf § 513.
The Remedies Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that all courts shall be open and individuals “shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.” The majority begins its opinion asserting that the Remedies Clause is an “important right” based on its explicit inclusion in the state’s constitution and historical significance. The majority concluded that because it put a time limit on obtaining a remedy, the Mcare Act’s statute of repose diminished an important right set forth by the Remedies Clause.
The majority reasoned that the statute must withstand “intermediate scrutiny” to be deemed constitutional. Under intermediate scrutiny, the court must apply a test whereby the law at issue must be substantially related to an important government interest, in this case, controlling the rising costs of medical malpractice insurance premiums.
In support of its conclusion, the majority pointed out that there was no evidence explaining how the Pennsylvania General Assembly arrived at a seven-year repose period with the exception for foreign objects cases and minors. There was no statistical evidence or any other indication that a seven-year timeframe would have any effect on insurance cost.
Finally, the majority reasoned that because the statute offers insurers no definite period after which there will be no liability claims, there is no actuarial predictability. Accordingly, without actuarial predictability, the statute of repose is not substantially related to controlling the cost of malpractice insurance rates.
Because the Mcare Act’s statute of repose is not substantially related to achieving a government interest, it is, therefore, unconstitutional. The court’s decision in Yanakos gives plaintiffs more time to file medical malpractice lawsuits in Pennsylvania.
Powell Law attorneys have unmatched experience assisting individuals who have suffered damages caused by the negligence of medical professionals. James F. Mundy, Esq. has decades of experience in litigating and settling medical malpractice cases. Call Powell Law to learn more about whether you have a potential medical malpractice case. Call Powell Law at (570) 961-0777 today.
