Opinion ID: 1853370
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: limitation of liability and patients' compensation fund provisions

Text: The four provisions of the medical malpractice act which the trial judge in this case declared unconstitutional form the principal means by which health care providers in the private sector are to be treated differently from other tort perpetrators in an effort to solve the feared medical malpractice crisis. The absolute limit on recovery to $500,000 as provided for in R.S. 40:1299.42(B)(1) and the structure of the patients' compensation fund as set out in R.S. 40:1299.44 together form part of the mechanism by which qualified health care providers limit their liability. The medical review panel procedure set up through R.S. 40:1299.47 is intended to insulate health care providers from fighting frivolous claims through expensive and tedious court procedures, and to encourage settlement of clearly meritorious claims. The ad damnum proscription of R.S. 40:1299.41(E), while of less importance to the entire scheme, is expected to contribute to the gradual decrease in the amount of awards made by juries in those cases that do go to trial. In its judgment, the trial court declared unconstitutional each of these four provisions. Only two of them, however, were raised by the pleadings. The need for plaintiff to convene a medical review panel before filing suit and the failure of plaintiff to comply with the ad damnum proscription were raised by defendant Goldman's exception of prematurity and his alternative motion to strike. The plaintiff filed no further pleadings in response to defendant's exceptions and motion, but in a memorandum she attacked the constitutionality of the entire statute. It is our rule of long standing to refrain from considering constitutional issues unless such a determination is necessary to a resolution of the present rights of the litigants in the case. Aucoin v. Dunn, supra ; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., 199 La. 557, 6 So.2d 660 (1942). Undoubtedly, many aspects of the medical malpractice act will be subjected to judicial scrutiny before it becomes settled to what extent the legislature's remedial effort is consistent with constitutional restraints. However, each provision is entitled to judicial evaluation in the context of a justiciable issue the resolution of which requires its application. The case at bar in its present posture properly presents for consideration but two facets of the medical malpractice act: (1) the requirement that the plaintiff first submit her complaint to a medical review panel, the composition of which is provided by R.S. 40:1299.47(B), and (2) the prohibition against the traditional ad damnum clause praying for damages in a specific dollar amount, as provided by R.S. 40:1299.41(E), second clause. These were the only two provisions of the act pertinent to defendant's objections, see C.Civ.P. art. 852, in the present posture of the case. Thus, we determine that only the constitutionality of R.S. 40:1299.47(B) and R.S. 40:1299.41(E) are before us. We will therefore make no determination relative to the constitutionality of R.S. 40:1299.42(B)(1) (the $500,000 limitation) or R.S. 40:1299.44 (the patients' compensation fund). For this reason, we will vacate the trial court's judgment holding unconstitutional R.S. 40:1299.42(B)(1) and R.S. 40:1299.44.