§671-12  Review by panel required; notice;
presentation of claims; request for a more definite statement of the claim. 
(a)  Effective July 1, 1976, any person or the person's representative claiming
that a medical tort has been committed shall submit a statement of the claim to
the medical claim conciliation panel before a suit based on the claim may be
commenced in any court of this State.  Claims shall be submitted to the medical
claim conciliation panel in writing.  The claimant shall set forth facts upon
which the claim is based and shall include the names of all parties against
whom the claim is or may be made who are then known to the claimant.



(b)  Within five business days thereafter the
panel shall give notice of the claim and the statement of the claim, by
certified mail, to all health care providers and others who are or may be
parties to the claim and shall furnish copies of written claims to such
persons.  Such notice shall set forth a date, not more than twenty days after
mailing the notice, within which any health care provider against whom a claim
is made shall file a written response to the claim, and a date and time, not
less than five days following the last date for filing a response, for a
hearing of the panel.  Such notice shall describe the nature and purpose of the
panel's proceedings and shall designate the place of the meeting.  The times
originally set forth in the notice may be enlarged by the chairperson, on due
notice to all parties, for good cause.



(c)  If the statement of the claim in the
notice is so vague or ambiguous that any party receiving notice of the claim
cannot reasonably be required to frame a written response, the party may submit
a written request to the director of commerce and consumer affairs for a more
definite statement before filing the written response.  Copies of the request
shall be provided to the panel, the claimant, and other affected parties.  The
request, which shall be ex parte and stay the proceedings of the panel until
notice of the director's decision is given to the panel and all parties, shall
specify the defects complained of and the details desired.  The director may
deny, grant, or modify the request at the director's own discretion, without
the necessity of a hearing, although the director may reach a decision after
consulting with the panel or the claimant.  The director shall provide notice
of the decision to the panel, the claimant, and other affected parties.  If the
request is granted and the claimant fails to provide a more definite statement
of the claim within five days after notice of the decision, the panel may make
such order as it deems just.  This subsection shall not be used as a tactic to
delay the proceedings. [L 1976, c 219, pt of §2; gen ch 1985; am L 1989, c 245,
§1; am L 1993, c 96, §1]



 



Law Journals and Reviews



 



  Tort and Insurance "Reform" in a Common Law Court.  14 UH L. Rev. 55.



 



Case Notes



 



  Medical claim conciliation panel requirement is procedural
rather than substantive, and does not apply to cases filed in federal court on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction.  29 F. Supp. 2d 1174.



  Claim was allowed to be heard because there was substantial
compliance with procedural requirements.  69 H. 305, 741 P.2d 1280.



  Where certain counts of plaintiff's complaint alleged errors
or omissions in professional practice by a health care provider, thus falling
under the definition of "medical tort" under §671-1(2), court
properly ruled plaintiff could not proceed with those counts of suit without
first submitting them to medical claim conciliation panel as required by
§671-16 and this section.  89 H. 188, 970 P.2d 496.



  Where plaintiff chose to sidestep requirements of §671-16 and
this section by filing suit before seeking resolution of claims by a medical
claim conciliation panel as required under these statutes, court properly
dismissed complaint.  89 H. 188, 970 P.2d 496.



  Where medical claim conciliation panel decision was filed
after commencement of plaintiffs' suit in trial court, plaintiffs failed to
comply with the requirements of this section; thus, trial court did not err in
concluding it had no subject matter jurisdiction.  90 H. 425, 978 P.2d 863.



  Subsection (a) requires only that a claimant set forth facts
upon which the claim is based and include the names of all parties against whom
the claim is or may be made who are then known to the claimant; nowhere in this
section does it require plaintiffs to name all known negligent health care
providers; having filed the requisite medical claim conciliation panel claim,
participated in the required hearing, and rejected the panel's finding of no
actionable negligence, plaintiffs satisfied this chapter's statutory
prerequisites for filing suit in circuit court.  111 H. 74, 137 P.3d 980.



  Where defendants city, city department of health, and city
director of health fit within the definition of "health care
facility" under §323D-2 and "health care provider" under §671-1,
and as to them, each of the eight counts alleged a "medical tort",
plaintiff was required to submit the eight counts against them to the medical
claim conciliation panel pursuant to this section as a precondition to filing
suit.  93 H. 490 (App.), 6 P.3d 362.