Opinion ID: 2318666
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Report Pursuant to M.R.App. P. 24(a)

Text: [¶ 7] Upon report of a case pursuant to M.R.App. P. 24(a), we independently determine whether, as an exception to the final judgment rule, acceptance of the report would be consistent with our basic function as an appellate court, or would improperly place us in the role of an advisory board. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Estate of Faulkner, 2008 ME 149, ¶ 6, 957 A.2d 94, 98 (quotation marks omitted). We consider whether (1) the question reported is of sufficient importance and doubt to outweigh the policy against piecemeal litigation; (2) the question might not have to be decided at all because of other possible dispositions; and (3) a decision on the issue would, in at least one alternative, dispose of the action. Id. ¶¶ 7-9, 957 A.2d at 98 (quotation marks omitted); M.R.App. P. 24(a). [¶ 8] The question presented is whether a cause of action for professional negligence under the Health Security Act exists for acts or omissions committed during a continuing course of negligent treatment when some of the acts or omissions occurred outside the limitations period.
[¶ 9] As to the first criterion of Rule 24(a), this question of law is a novel one that we expressly left open in Dickey, 2008 ME 179, ¶ 9, 960 A.2d at 1180, and it is capable of frequent repetition. Because its resolution will affect patients' ability to bring legal claims and health care providers' and practitioners' exposure to liability, we conclude that the question is sufficiently important for it to be addressed on report. See Liberty Ins. Underwriters, 2008 ME 149, ¶ 11, 957 A.2d at 98-99; York Register of Probate v. York Cnty. Probate Court, 2004 ME 58, ¶ 12, 847 A.2d 395, 398.
[¶ 10] The second criterion asks whether another possible disposition would render the reported question moot. Because the question on report addresses a threshold matter related to the application of a statute of limitations, other possible dispositions are limited. However, if the parties' stipulation precludes a finding that a claim for negligence arose within the limitations period, then the statute of limitations would clearly apply and resolution of the reported question would be unnecessary. See Dickey, 2008 ME 179, ¶ 9 n. 2, 960 A.2d at 1180-81. [¶ 11] The essential elements of a claim for negligence are duty, breach, proximate causation, and harm. Id. The elements of duty, breach, and proximate causation are alleged by the parties' stipulations that between 2002 and 2006, Dr. Farrand failed to respond appropriately to abnormal [PSA] test results, and at trial, Baker would offer expert witness testimony that he suffered damage as a result of the negligent acts that occurred within [the limitations period]. Although the stipulation describes the alleged damage caused by the acts or omissions occurring within the limitations period as either indeterminate or negligible, the stipulation nevertheless asserts actual loss or harm for which Baker may prove damages, some or all of which may be negligible. [3] See Cunningham v. Huffman, 154 Ill.2d 398, 182 Ill.Dec. 18, 609 N.E.2d 321, 325 (1993) (adopting the continuous negligent treatment doctrine and recognizing that the doctrine applies even where the damages arising within the limitations period are negligible); Dickey, 2008 ME 179, ¶ 34, 960 A.2d at 1186 (Silver, J., dissenting) (discussing Cunningham ). [¶ 12] The stipulation does not preclude a finding that a negligent act or omission occurred within the limitations period. Accordingly, the application of the statute of limitations in this case turns on how we answer the question on report, and there are no other possible dispositions that would render the question moot.
[¶ 13] The parties also stipulated that Baker will dismiss this action with prejudice unless we vacate the partial summary judgment. Therefore, a decision that affirms the court's judgment would dispose of this action. [¶ 14] Because all three criteria required by Rule 24(a) are satisfied, we accept the report of this case. See Liberty Ins. Underwriters, 2008 ME 149, ¶¶ 7-9, 957 A.2d at 98.