§671-16 Subsequent litigation; excluded evidence.
451 words·~2 min read·
/hi/chapter-671/671-16A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
§671-16 Subsequent litigation; excluded evidence. [(a)] The party initiating the inquiry may institute litigation based upon the circumstances of the inquiry in an appropriate court only after the medical inquiry and conciliation panel proceedings were terminated pursuant to section 671-15; a party has participated in alternative dispute resolution pursuant to section 671-16.6; or the twelve-month period under section 671-18 has expired.
[(b)] No statement made in the course of the proceedings of the medical inquiry and conciliation panel shall be admissible in evidence either as an admission, to impeach the credibility of a witness, or for any other purpose in any trial of the action; provided that the statements may be admissible for the purpose of section 671-19. No decision, conclusion, finding, statement, or recommendation of the medical inquiry and conciliation panel on the issue of liability or on the issue of damages shall be admitted into evidence in any subsequent trial, nor shall any party to the medical inquiry and conciliation panel proceeding, or the counsel or other representative of a party, refer or comment thereon in an opening statement, an argument, or at any other time, to the court or jury; provided that the decision, conclusion, finding, or recommendation may be admissible for the purpose of section 671-19. [L 1976, c 219, pt of §2; am L 1980, c 88, §3; am L 2003, c 211, §3 ; am L 2012, c 296, pt of §4]
Case Notes
Claim was allowed to be heard because there was substantial compliance with procedural requirements. 69 H. 305, 741 P.2d 1280 (1987).
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 §671-12 and this section. 89 H. 188, 970 P.2d 496 (1998).
Where plaintiff chose to sidestep requirements of §671-12 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 (1998).
Plaintiff's claims of neglect, abuse, and failure to provide a safe home against care home defendants did not constitute "medical torts" within the meaning of §671-1; thus, plaintiff was not required to submit plaintiff's claims to a medical claim conciliation panel
(MCCP)pursuant to §671-12 and this section as a condition for plaintiff to file suit against defendants, and the circuit court erred in dismissing plaintiff's suit based on plaintiff's failure to submit plaintiff's claims to a MCCP. 128 H. 405 (App.), 289 P.3d 1041 (2012).