Colton v. Riccobono, 67 N.Y.2d 571 (1986)
A state’s requirement for medical malpractice mediation panels as a condition precedent to trial does not per se violate due process or access to courts, provided the process is reasonable and doesn’t create undue delay.
Summary
This case concerns a plaintiff’s challenge to New York’s medical malpractice panel requirement, arguing it unconstitutionally delayed her access to the courts. The Court of Appeals held that while access to courts is a matter of state concern, the legislature has broad latitude in establishing dispute resolution machinery. The medical malpractice panel requirement, designed to mediate settlements and narrow issues for trial, bears a rational relationship to reducing litigation costs and preserving quality healthcare, and thus does not violate due process unless it causes unreasonable delay. The plaintiff failed to prove such delay or prejudice in her specific case.
Facts
Petitioner commenced a medical malpractice action against a hospital and doctors in May 1974, alleging negligence in a surgical procedure performed on her husband, who later died. She filed a note of issue and certificate of readiness in December 1983. A pre-panel conference was held in December 1984, but a medical malpractice panel hearing had not taken place by May 1985 when the petitioner filed this proceeding. The petitioner claimed the delay in assembling and convening a panel was denying her access to the courts.
Procedural History
Petitioner initiated an Article 78 proceeding seeking an order compelling the administrative judge and clerk to assemble a medical malpractice panel or, alternatively, to waive the panel hearing or transfer the case to another county. The Appellate Division dismissed the petition. The petitioner then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that the statute and regulation unconstitutionally deprived her of access to the courts.
Issue(s)
Whether Judiciary Law § 148-a and the Appellate Division Rules, as applied to the petitioner, deny her access to the courts because of the delay in assembling a hearing panel, thereby violating due process?
Holding
No, because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that her case was not moving toward a hearing in a timely fashion, and because alternative remedies exist to address egregious delays.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that while access to civil courts is primarily a state matter, legislatures have broad latitude in establishing dispute resolution mechanisms as long as they are reasonable and afford procedural due process. The Court acknowledged that New York’s constitution prohibits the legislature from abrogating wrongful death causes of action, implying a right of access to civil courts for such claims. However, Judiciary Law § 148-a, requiring medical malpractice panels, was a legislative response to rising malpractice insurance rates and was seen as a way to better equip litigants for settlement or trial preparation, thereby reducing litigation costs. The Court stated that “[s]ince the legislation bears a rational relationship to this need, it does not violate substantive due process concerns.”
The Court found that the petitioner had not demonstrated that her case was unduly delayed compared to other malpractice actions. The customary time for assembling a panel was about one year, and the petitioner did not show that her case differed significantly or that she had been prejudiced. The court further noted the petitioner’s own delay in noticing the case for trial and her failure to promptly seek an expedited pre-panel conference.
The Court also pointed out that even if egregious delay were demonstrated, other remedies exist, such as transferring the case to another county where a suitable panel member might be found. The Appellate Division’s decision not to exercise its discretion to transfer the case did not result in an unconstitutional denial of due process.
The court emphasized the legislature’s intent behind the statute: “It was seen as a means of better equipping litigants to mediate a settlement, if warranted, or to prepare and narrow the issues for trial, if trial was required, thereby reducing the cost of litigation and helping preserve quality health care in this State.”