Opinion ID: 6108497
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: statutory framework of section 538.225

Text: Section 538.225.1 requires that the plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel shall file an affidavit with the court stating that he or she has obtained the written opinion of a legally qualified health care provider which states that the defendant health care provider failed to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful health care provider would have under similar circumstances and that such failure to use such reasonable care directly caused or directly contributed to cause the damages claimed in the petition. (Emphasis added). When first enacted, the statute further provided, if no such affidavit is filed within 90 days, the court may , upon motion of any party, dismiss the action against such moving party without prejudice. § 538.225.5, RSMo 1985 (emphasis added). The statute was amended in 2005 to provide the court shall dismiss the action if an affidavit is not filed. The 2005 amendment also added, for the first time, language defining a legally qualified health care provider as one licensed in the same profession as the defendant and either actively practicing or within five years of retirement from actively practicing substantially the same specialty as the defendant. § 538.225.2, RSMo 2005 . Ms. Hink's sole point relied on states as follows: The trial court erred in sustaining Dr. Helfrich's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to File Healthcare Affidavit pursuant to RSMo. § 538.225 because RSMo. § 538.225 is unconstitutional in that there are circumstances where it is impossible for the plaintiff to comply with the requirements of RSMo. § 538.225. As the separate opinion notes, Ms. Hink's point is an abstract statement of law and is too general and vague, as is her argument regarding the alleged violation of the right to jury trial and separation of powers. But this Court prefers to dispose of cases on the merits if it can discern the argument being made. See Pub. Water Supply Dist. No. 2 of Jackson Cty. v. Alex Bascom Co., 370 S.W.2d 281 , 291 (Mo. 1963) ; see also Lueker v. Mo. W. State Univ., 241 S.W.3d 865 , 867 (Mo. App. 2008) (An appellate court prefers to dispose of a case on the merits rather than to dismiss an appeal for deficiencies in the brief.). This Court can discern from the argument section of Ms. Hink's brief and oral argument, from the amicus brief, and from her citation to this Court's discussion of similar issues in Mahoney, 807 S.W.2d at 503 , that her key argument is section 538.225 violates the open courts provision of Missouri's constitution  because the post-2005 definition of legally qualified healthcare provider arbitrarily and unreasonably restricts a plaintiff's access to the courts in that it leads to dismissal of a case for failure to file an affidavit even if the plaintiff otherwise would have made a submissible case. 3