Opinion ID: 2598967
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Does the conflict between RCW 7.70.150 and CR 8 and 11 involve procedures or substantive law?

Text: ¶ 18 As noted above, if a statute appears to conflict with a court rule, this court will first attempt to harmonize them and give effect to both. Fircrest, 158 Wash.2d at 394, 143 P.3d 776. If they cannot be harmonized, the court rule will prevail in procedural matters and the statute will prevail in substantive matters. Substantive law `creates, defines, and regulates primary rights,' while procedures involve the `operations of the courts by which substantive law, rights, and remedies are effectuated.' Id. (quoting State v. Smith, 84 Wash.2d 498, 501, 527 P.2d 674 (1974)). ¶ 19 Several other state supreme courts have invalidated certificate and affidavit requirements for medical malpractice litigation, holding that they conflict with court rules regarding the procedures for filing lawsuits and therefore violate the separation of powers. See, e.g., Summerville v. Thrower, 369 Ark. 231, 239, 253 S.W.3d 415 (2007) (invalidating a statute that required medical malpractice plaintiffs to submit an affidavit of reasonable cause from a medical expert within 30 days of filing); Wimley v. Reid, 991 So.2d 135, 138 (Miss.2008) (invalidating a statute that required the plaintiff's attorney to submit a certificate that he or she has consulted a medical expert prior to filing); Hiatt v. S. Health Facilities, Inc., 68 Ohio St.3d 236, 237-38, 1994-Ohio-294, 626 N.E.2d 71 (invalidating a statute requiring the plaintiff's attorney in a medical malpractice action to submit an affidavit attesting that he or she had requested a copy of the medical records). But see McAlister v. Schick, 147 Ill.2d 84, 94, 588 N.E.2d 1151, 167 Ill.Dec. 1021 (1992) (upholding an affidavit statute, holding that the statute fell within the legislature's power to enact laws to determine and effectuate public policy and did not impede court's ability to control its procedures). ¶ 20 We hold that RCW 7.70.150 is procedural because it addresses how to file a claim to enforce a right provided by law. See, e.g., Hiatt, 68 Ohio St.3d at 238, 626 N.E.2d 71 (Since the conflict involves the form and content of the complaint to initiate a medical malpractice case, it is a procedural matter.). The statute does not address the primary rights of either party; it deals only with the procedures to effectuate those rights. Therefore, it is a procedural law and will not prevail over the conflicting court rules. [4]