Opinion ID: 1971616
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Legislature Intended. Result

Text: If a statute is not reasonably susceptible to different conclusions or interpretations, courts must apply the words as written, unless the result of such a literal application could not have been intended by the legislature. [17] This Court has recognized that the main reason for the passage of the Delaware Medical Malpractice Act was the concern over the law extant at the time of its passage and the rising costs of malpractice liability insurance. [18] As this Court noted in Christiana Hospital v. Fattori : Prior to the enactment of the Medical Malpractice Act of 1976 (the Act), medical malpractice actions were governed by Chapter 81 of Title 10, pertaining to personal actions. The Delaware General Assembly adopted the Act in response to increasing costs of insurance coverage for health care providers and out of concern for the potentially open-ended period of limitations established in this Court's decision in Layton v. Allen, Del.Supr. 246 A.2d 794 (1968) (citations omitted). Included in the Act was Section 6856 of Title 18, which reimposes a definite two-year statute of limitations upon medical malpractice actions with only two limited exceptions. . . . [19] The preamble of the Medical Malpractice Act of 1976 is also instructive, and provides: WHEREAS, the General Assembly determined it is necessary to make certain modifications to its current legal system as it relates to health care malpractice claims if the citizens of Delaware are to continue to receive a high quality of health care while still assuring that any person who has sustained bodily injury or death as a result of a tort or breach of conduct on the part of the health care provider resulting from professional services rendered, or which should have been rendered, can obtain a prompt determination of adjudication of that claim and receive fair and reasonable compensation from financially responsible health care providers who are able to insure their liability. . . . [20] In addition, the report to the Governor by the Delaware Medical Malpractice Commission, which drafted the 1976 statute, states that: [t]he overall effect will be to eliminate the uncertainty created by the present open-ended period of limitations. . . .  [21] As this Court noted in Fattori, the sweeping nature of the 1976 legislation conveys an intention of a complete break with the past legal treatment of medical malpractice claims. [22] As part of an effort in tort reform, the General Assembly clearly intended to ameliorate the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance by limiting law suits to those litigants who properly avail themselves of the judicial system by strict compliance with the Act. Subpart (3) of section 6856 was added to the Delaware Medical Malpractice Act in July 2003. The synopsis accompanying the amendment is also instructive and reads in pertinent part: Additionally a process to allow up to ninety (90) days to investigate a potential negligence claim is added and would extend the medical malpractice statute of limitations accordingly. It is expected that this grace period will give plaintiffs an opportunity to determine whether a potential claim has merit and will result in some lawsuits that might otherwise be filed not being filed. [23] We conclude that the various historical recitations of the purposes for enacting the Delaware Medical Malpractice Act, including the 2003 addition of subpart (3) to section 6856, clearly reflect the General Assembly's intent to limit the number of medical malpractice actions.