Opinion ID: 2598967
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Does RCW 7.70.150 Unduly Burden the Right of Access to Courts?

Text: ¶ 6 The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 163, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). The people have a right of access to courts; indeed, it is the bedrock foundation upon which rest all the people's rights and obligations. John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wash.2d 772, 780, 819 P.2d 370 (1991). This right of access to courts includes the right of discovery authorized by the civil rules. Id. As we have said before, [i]t is common legal knowledge that extensive discovery is necessary to effectively pursue either a plaintiff's claim or a defendant's defense. Id. at 782, 819 P.2d 370. ¶ 7 Requiring medical malpractice plaintiffs to submit a certificate prior to discovery hinders their right of access to courts. Through the discovery process, plaintiffs uncover the evidence necessary to pursue their claims. Id. Obtaining the evidence necessary to obtain a certificate of merit may not be possible prior to discovery, when health care workers can be interviewed and procedural manuals reviewed. Requiring plaintiffs to submit evidence supporting their claims prior to the discovery process violates the plaintiffs' right of access to courts. It is the duty of the courts to administer justice by protecting the legal rights and enforcing the legal obligations of the people. Id. at 780, 819 P.2d 370. Accordingly, we must strike down this law.