Court Opinion

ID: 9680417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:31:38.358699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:28.470970
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I disagree particularly when the majority states, “We cannot say the legislature was in error when it determined that medical malpractice insurance rates were increasing and placing a heavy burden of medical expense on those who could least afford it.” I think such a statement is completely unfounded and I have seen nothing which would change this impression. The 60 day notice requirement of this act in no manner increases the potential for settling a claim. The same story could be used if a claimant were required to give notice 360 days in advance. The claims of no other tortfeasors are given this privilege. The record did not reflect that the cost of insurance was reduced, or that this act did, indeed, help control the spiraling cost of health care. The mere fact that a person can place MD or any other title after his name should not place him in a special category for the purpose of receiving more favorable treatment than any other person similarly situated. I can find no rational basis for treating medical providers any differently than food providers or any other group. At the very least the appellant should have been allowed to go to trial on the allegations of the complaint. This legislation was enacted as a result of good lobbying and not because the poor are suffering. The majority states that this was experimental and innovative legislation. I would choose other words to describe it, two of which appear very prominently in Amendment 14 to the Arkansas Constitution, those being “special” and “local.” I would reverse and remand.