§671-19  Duty to cooperate; assessment of
costs and fees.  It shall be the duty of every person who files a claim
with the medical claim conciliation panel, every health care provider against
whom the claim is made, and every insurance carrier or other person providing
medical tort liability insurance for the health care provider, to cooperate
with the medical claim conciliation panel for the purpose of achieving a
prompt, fair, and just disposition or settlement of the claim, provided that
cooperation shall not prejudice the substantive rights of those persons.



Any party may apply to the panel to have the
costs of the action assessed against any party for failure to cooperate with
the panel.  The panel may award costs, or a portion thereof, including attorney's
fees, witness fees, including those of expert witnesses, filing fees, and costs
of the medical claim conciliation panel hearing to the party applying therefor.



In determining whether any person has failed to
cooperate in good faith, the panel shall consider, but is not limited to, the
following:



(1)  The attendance of the persons at the hearing of
the medical claim conciliation panel;



(2)  The extent to which representatives of parties
and counsel representing parties came to panel hearings with knowledge of the
claims and defenses and authority to negotiate a settlement or other
disposition of the claim;



(3)  The testimony of members of the panel as to the
facts of the person's participation in the panel hearing;



(4)  The extent of the person's cooperation in
providing the panel with documents and testimony called for by the panel;



(5)  The reasons advanced by the person so charged for
not fully cooperating or negotiating; and



(6)  The failure of the person to submit any required
fees to the department of commerce and consumer affairs, as required by this
chapter.



The party against whom costs are awarded may
appeal the award to the circuit court.  The court may affirm or remand the case
with instructions for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the
award if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced
because the award is characterized as abuse of discretion. [L 1976, c 219, pt
of §2; am L 1982, c 204, §8; am L 1983, c 124, §17; am L 1993, c 95, §1; am L
1995, c 213, §3]