Court Opinion

ID: 9558850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:17:57.0082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:38.375564
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Justice,
concurring in the result:
I join in the result reached by the majority opinion. However, I do not base my decision on the uniform operation of laws provision in article I, section 24 of the Utah Constitution as does the majority, but on article I, section 11, the open courts provision. Both grounds were argued by the parties, but here, as in Condemarin v. University Hospital, 775 P.2d 348, 366 (Utah 1989) (Zimmerman, J., concurring in part), I find no reason to reach the uniform operation of laws provision when the right at issue is plainly one protected by article I, section 11. In this respect, I adhere to my position in Condemarin and employ the substantive due process analysis of Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 717 P.2d 670, 677 (Utah 1985), that is appropriate to article I, section 11 claims.1
*591As to the basis of my decision today, the legislature has effectively enacted a statute of repose for minors in medical malpractice eases. As the majority points out, the statutes at issue here require a minor to bring an action within two, or at a maximum, four, years after the malpractice injury. But since a minor has no legal, and ordinarily no actual, ability to bring an action, even though he or she owns the cause of action, the net effect of the statute is to deprive the minor of the cause of action before the minor is legally entitled to assert it. Cf. Scott v. School Bd. of Granite Sch. Dist., 568 P.2d 746 (Utah 1977).
Because the legislation at issue operates as a statute of repose for minors and drastically limits a minor’s right to a substantive “remedy by due course of law” for “an injury done to him [or her] in his [or her] person, property or reputation,” Utah Const, art. I, § 11, the legislation’s constitutionality must be tested under the settled open courts standards of Berry and its progeny. See, e.g., Horton v. Goldminer’s Daughter, 785 P.2d 1087 (Utah 1989); Sun Valley Water Beds v. Hughes & Son, 782 P.2d 188 (Utah 1989). Those standards are as follows:
First, section 11 is satisfied if the law [limiting one’s right to remedy] provides an injured person an effective and reasonable alternative remedy “by due course of law” for vindication of his [or her] constitutional interest. The benefit provided by the substitute must be substantially equal in value or other benefit to the remedy abrogated in providing essentially comparable substantive protection to one’s person, property, or reputation, although the form of the substitute remedy may be different.
Second, if there is no substitute or alternative remedy provided, abrogation of the remedy or cause of action may be justified only if there is a clear social or economic evil to be eliminated and the elimination of an existing legal remedy is not an arbitrary or unreasonable means for achieving the objective.
Berry, 717 P.2d at 680 (citations omitted), quoted in Sun Valley Water Beds, 782 P.2d at 191-92.
It should be added that under our article I, section 11 cases, when we have found a statute to limit a right protected by the open courts provision, we have, de facto, shifted from a presumption that the limiting statute is constitutional to a presumption that the statute is unconstitutional, placing the burden to show that the Berry test is satisfied upon those seeking to uphold the challenged statute. This shift of presumption can be seen from a careful reading of Berry, Sun Valley Water Beds, and Horton, cases from which no member of the present court dissented, and in Justice Durham’s and my open courts analysis in Condemarin. I suggested in Condemarin that this shift of presumption be stated openly, 775 P.2d at 368 (Zimmerman, J., concurring in part); accord Horton, 785 P.2d at 1096 (Zimmerman, J., concurring, joined by Durham, J.), and I repeat that suggestion again today.
In the instant case, a straightforward article I, section 11 analysis leads easily to the conclusion that this statute, like those addressed in Berry, Sun Valley Water Beds, and Horton, is unconstitutional. First, the statutes in question provide no real alternative remedy to the right of the minor to sue after majority, which was the common law antedating statehood. The statutes’ defenders contend that an adequate substantive remedy is provided by the fact that a minor’s parent can be appointed guardian ad litem and that a parent has a natural interest in seeing that the child’s legal rights are vindicated. As an initial matter, the statutes at issue provide no alternative or substitute remedy for the one taken away. But even if *592the existence of a de facto alternative or substitute would satisfy the requirements of article I, section 11, the facts of the two cases before us are profound proof that the asserted de facto substitute of relying on a parent to protect the minor’s interest is not “essentially comparable substantive protection” for the child’s ability to bring his or her own action after obtaining majority.
Moving to the second analytical element of Berry, in the absence of an adequate substitute or alternative remedy, the proponents of the legislation limiting article I, section 11 rights must show that “there is a clear social or economic evil to be eliminated and [that] the elimination of an existing legal remedy is not an arbitrary or unreasonable means .for achieving the objective.” 717 P.2d at 680. Here, as in the analogous situation in Conde-marin, the legislation’s supporters have not carried their burden of proof. As the majority opinion demonstrates, the justifications advanced for the legislature’s severe abridgement of the right of this narrow category of potential plaintiffs to bring their actions for actual injuries suffered are speculative, to put it charitably. The defenders of this legislation certainly have not shown that the effective elimination of the minor’s legal right to sue for medical malpractice is a reasonable, nonarbitrary means for lowering medical malpractice premiums in Utah. Absent such a showing, they have failed to rebut the presumption of unconstitutionality that attaches to legislation that so severely limits a common law right of action protected by article I, section 11.
For the foregoing reasons, I concur in the decision of the majority to strike down section 78-14-4(2) to the extent that it applies to minors.
HALL, C.J., concurs in the concurring opinion of ZIMMERMAN, J.

. Justice Stewart relies on the fact that the statute challenged infringes on a right guaranteed by article I, section 11 as justification for invoking a standard of scrutiny higher than that applicable under article I, section 24 when mere economic legislation is at issue. See, e.g., Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. State, 779 P.2d 634, 637-38 (Utah *5911989); Mountain Fuel Supply Co. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 752 P.2d 884, 888 (Utah 1988). On the other hand, under the majority opinion, if the interest at stake is one that does not fall within the protection of article I, section 11, a lower level of scrutiny is appropriate. However, I suspect that as applied by the majority, the real analytical importance of the stated level of scrutiny is less than meets the eye, at least where legislation impinging on recovery for personal injuries is at issue. See McCorvey v. Utah, 868 P.2d 41 (1993) (Stewart, J., concurring and dissenting, joined by Durham, J.) (arguing that damage cap on personal injury recoveries against state cannot pass scrutiny under lower standard of scrutiny for economic legislation).