Opinion ID: 2417477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Medical Malpractice Act

Text: The guardians assert that Ark.Code Ann. § 16-114-207(3) (1987), a part of the Medical Malpractice Act, is unconstitutional. This section of the act provides that no medical care provider shall be required to give expert testimony at trial against himself or herself. The arguments on this point raised in the trial court consist of the following. In a motion for authority to ask the defendant doctors to give expert opinion testimony at their depositions, the guardians asserted § 16-114-207(3) did not apply to discovery. A hearing was held regarding this motion, and during the discussion, counsel for the guardians stated, [l]et me just state this for the record. I think this whole statute is unconstitutional. This same issue was before Judge Bogard in another case. He ruled this entire statute unconstitutional. If the Court is going to rule against me on this point, I would like to make that argument and present a brief on that point so I can preserve my record on that to go to the Supreme Court with it. But I think the whole statute is unconstitutional. (Emphasis added). The trial court commented his inclination was to allow the guardians to question the defendants about their opinions as to the standard of care but not to allow use of this testimony at trial. Subsequently, the guardians filed a third amended complaint which alleged in part: the so-called Arkansas Medical Malpractice Act ... and each and every section thereof, (1) Discriminates in favor of medical providers over others and, therefore, violates the equal protection clause of both the Federal and Arkansas constitutions (Ark. Const. Art. II, Sec. 3; U.S. Const. Amend. XIV), (2) Denies prompt access to the courts thereby depriving persons of the lawful right to redress (Ark. Const. Art. II, Sec. 13), (3) Constitutes special legislation (Ark. Const. Art. V, Sec. 25), (4) Violates the privileges and immunities clause of both the United States (U.S. Const.Amend. XIV) and the Arkansas Constitution (Ark. Const. Art. II, Sec. 18), (5) Violates the Arkansas Constitution in attempting to limit amounts of recoveries. (The Arkansas Constitution, at Art. V, Sec. 32, provides: that otherwise no law shall be enacted limiting the amount to be recovered for injuries resulting in death or for injuries to persons or property.), and (6) Violates the Supersession Rule. In response to a motion in limine filed by Quirk, the guardians stated in part, In the first place, plaintiffs contend that the so-called Medical Malpractice Act is unconstitutional. At a pretrial hearing on the motion in limine, during the course of his argument, counsel for the guardians stated, we would restate our position once again, that this particular statute, ..., is unconstitutional. The trial court stated, I'll hold that it is constitutional. Finally, in the hearing on the motion for new trial, the guardians proffered the order finding Ark.Code Ann. § 16-114-207(3) unconstitutional in another medical malpractice case. The order simply stated that § 16-114-207(3), (1) discriminates in favor of medical providers, (2) usurps the authority of the courts to establish rules of practice, pleadings and procedure, and (3) violates the equal protection clause and the privileges and immunities clause of the Arkansas and United States Constitution, therefore, that section of the Act is unconstitutional. There is no other indication in the abstract that the guardians presented any further argument or brief to the trial court. We first note that this constitutional issue was not properly briefed and argued to the trial court. See Prater v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 293 Ark. 547, 739 S.W.2d 676 (1987). This Court will not strike down a legislative act on constitutional grounds without first having the benefit of a fully developed adversary case. Drummond v. State, 320 Ark. 385, 897 S.W.2d 553 (1993). Moreover, the guardians did not raise the specific constitutional arguments they now seek to advance in this appeal. Harris v. State, 320 Ark. 677, 899 S.W.2d 459 (1995); see also Whitney v. Holland Retirement Center, Inc., 323 Ark. 16, 912 S.W.2d 427 (1996). At trial, they merely made conclusory statements that the statute was unconstitutional. This argument is therefore procedurally barred.