Opinion ID: 4531861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether it was error for the Intermediate Court

Text: of Appeals (“ICA”) in its Memorandum Opinion dated June 29, 2018, to affirm the trial court’s written order granting Defendant’s Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over a “loss of chance” claim, because the loss of chance claim had not been properly asserted in Plaintiff’s MCCP Claim Letter. This question is comprised of the following subsidiary questions:
establishing the MCCP (now the MICP) was to establish an informal, advisory forum, or to establish a formal setting with strict pleading standards.
the MCCP/MICP statute (Haw. Rev. Stat. §671-12) that “the Claimant . . . set forth facts upon which the claim is based” was intended to require of Plaintiffs a full, formal statement of all legal theories upon which a claim may be based. 16  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
on medical negligence must be asserted as a separate legal theory in an initial MCCP statement, or whether it may be considered subsumed in a more general medical negligence claim.
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 671-16, is to be construed to preclude litigation on any theories of liability that are not explicitly and meticulously pled by a Plaintiff in its MCCP statement.