Summary
This is a concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Donohue of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in a challenge to the MCARE Act’s seven-year medical-malpractice statute of repose. Justice Donohue concurred in the result but disagreed with the lead opinion’s conclusion that the right to a remedy under Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution is not a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny. She concluded that the statute of repose violates Article I, Section 11 because it bars remedies for injuries discovered after the repose period.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the right to a remedy under Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution is a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny of legislative infringements.
- Whether the MCARE Act's seven-year statute of repose violates Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Holdings
- The right to a remedy in Article I, Section 11 is a fundamental right, and legislative infringement must be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.
- The statute of repose is unconstitutional because it fails even intermediate scrutiny, and a fortiori would fail strict scrutiny.
Key quotations
“All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.” (slip op. at 3)
“The law which gives character to a case, and by which it is to be decided (excluding the forms of coming to a decision), is the law that is inherent in the case, and constitutes part of it when it arises as a complete transaction between the parties. If this law be changed or annulled, the case is changed, and justice denied, and due course of law violated.” (slip op. at 16)
“An injury is a wrong; and for the redress of every wrong there is a remedy; a wrong is a violation of one's right, and for the vindication of every right there is a remedy.” (slip op. at 10)
Factual background
The Yanakoses alleged medical malpractice by UPMC and related physicians, claiming injuries that were not discovered until after the MCARE Act's seven-year statute of repose had expired. The trial court dismissed the action based on the statute of repose, and the Superior Court affirmed. The Yanakoses challenged the statute as violating the right to a remedy under Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Procedural history
The Yanakoses filed a medical malpractice action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on the MCARE Act's seven-year statute of repose. The Superior Court affirmed. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review. The lead opinion held the statute of repose unconstitutional, and Justice Donohue concurred in the result but dissented from the lead opinion's intermediate scrutiny analysis.