Oregon Supreme Court Upholds Statute of Limitations in Medical Malpractice Cases Involving Minors

The Oregon Supreme Court this week upheld a five-year statute of limitations on medical malpractice lawsuits involving minors. The high court ruled against a woman’s claim that laws in effect when Oregon was a territory blocked a five-year statute of limitations that the Legislature approved after Oregon became a state. Kelly Christiansen sued Providence Health System, claiming one of its doctors failed to recognize signs that her son was experiencing fetal distress being born and failed to perform an emergency Caesarean section. She sued Providence in January 2003, eight years after her son was born. The boy had been diagnosed with various developmental and neurological disorders, including epilepsy, which other doctors blamed on fetal distress that caused a lack of oxygen that ultimately required artificial resuscitation after his birth. Christiansen argued that when Oregon was a territory, negligence suits involving a minor could be filed at any time before the child reached the age of majority because a statute was in place that tolled the limitation period for minors. She also argued that the state’s constitution protected that provision from change. The court rejected her argument unanimously. The court’s opinion by Chief Justice Paul De Muniz said the justices agreed with Christiansen that the five-year limitation “can lead to harsh consequences in some cases.” He added that state lawmakers are not barred from setting the statute of limitations as it did. “The Remedy Clause creates no barriers to the enactment of a statute that modifies the disability protection that minors enjoyed before 1859. Consequently, the pre-statehood disability law does not protect mother from the five-year limitation,” he wrote.

Please click on the link below to read the Legal Newsline article:

http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/212186-oregon-supreme-court-upholds-malpractice-limits

For more information on defending medical malpractice and nursing home matters in Florida contact Howard Citron at The Citron Law Firm, P.A. – www.citronlegal.com.

Oklahoma Governor Vows to Veto Newest Medical Malpractice Reform Measure

Barely before the ink was dry on a significant tort reform bill the Legislature passed Wednesday, Gov. Brad Henry promised to veto the measure. The bill would reinstate certain provisions of a law struck down as unconstitutional in 2006. House Bill 2458 would require plaintiffs to obtain an affidavit from an expert when filing a medical malpractice lawsuit – but this time, the bill includes wording designed to avoid a legal pitfall that rendered the previous law unconstitutional. Yet, Henry said the bill is too similar to the law that was previously rejected by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. “Governor Henry supports efforts to reduce frivolous lawsuits, but because the court has already spoken clearly on the certificate of merit issue, enacting this measure would be an exercise in futility,” said Henry’s spokesman Paul Sund. “Essentially, the state would make the same mistake twice, increasing costs for both businesses and consumers as the law was appealed and overturned for a second time by the Supreme Court.” HB 2458, by state Rep. Colby Schwartz, R-Yukon, was a bill to establish a system for tracking hospital-acquired infections before the Senate amended the bill on April 21 to provide the affidavit requirement. Sund said Henry communicated his concerns to legislative leaders as soon as the language was added, but lawmakers “chose to proceed with the flawed language.” The House voted 54 to 44 on Wednesday to accept the changes made in the Senate, sending the bill to Henry’s desk. The most recent version of HB 2458 would require a plaintiff filing any civil action for professional negligence to attach to their petition an affidavit attesting that a qualified expert has reviewed the claim and has issued a written opinion that the claim has merit and is based on good cause. The written opinion from the qualified expert would lay out the plaintiff’s case, citing the acts or omissions the expert believes constituted professional negligence. The expert’s written opinion would not be admissible at trial for any purpose, “nor shall inquiry be permitted with regard to the written opinion for any purpose either in discovery or at trial,” the bill states.

Please click on the link below to read the Journal Record article:

http://www.journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=88694

For more information on defending medical malpractice and nursing home matters in Florida contact Howard Citron at The Citron Law Firm, P.A. – www.citronlegal.com.