556 P.3d 53
Utah2024Background
- In July 2010, Dr. Gourley performed surgery on Tiffany Bingham, with a second surgery performed eight days later (assisted by Dr. Platt) after complications.
- Bingham experienced ongoing health problems, leading to corrective surgery in 2017 that revealed damage from the 2010 procedures and the removal of her kidney.
- In August 2020, Bingham sued the doctors for negligence, but her claim was dismissed as barred by Utah’s four-year statute of repose for medical malpractice claims.
- Bingham did not contest the timing but challenged the statute’s constitutionality under the Utah Constitution’s Open Courts Clause, Uniform Operation of Laws Provision, and the federal Equal Protection Clause.
- The district court upheld the statute as constitutional and dismissed Bingham’s claims with prejudice; she appealed directly to the Utah Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality under Open Courts Clause | Statute of repose arbitrarily denies remedy to those with undiscoverable injuries; lacks alternative remedy and clear evil to address | Statute addresses legislative concerns about malpractice costs; reasonable and non-arbitrary | Statute is constitutional; deference to legislative findings; dismissal affirmed |
| Constitutionality under Uniform Operation of Laws | Discriminates against those with undetectable injuries; not reasonably necessary | Statute’s line-drawing (e.g., foreign object exception) is justified and furthers Act’s goal | Statute is constitutional; bars some claims but substantially furthers legislative goals |
| Constitutionality under Equal Protection Clause | Statute discriminates against plaintiffs with latent injuries; strict scrutiny needed | No fundamental right impacted; rational basis applies | Statute survives rational basis review; no violation |
| Reconsideration of Berry precedent | Urges court to use heightened scrutiny/modify Berry | Urges court to overrule Berry if violation found | Court does not reconsider Berry; precedent stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry ex rel. Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 717 P.2d 670 (Utah 1985) (establishes three-part test for open courts challenges under Utah Constitution)
- Waite v. Utah Lab. Comm’n, 416 P.3d 635 (Utah 2017) (reaffirms and clarifies standards for open courts and uniform operation of laws challenges)
- Lee v. Gaufin, 867 P.2d 572 (Utah 1993) (applies heightened scrutiny under uniform operation of laws when open courts rights are implicated)
- Judd v. Drezga, 103 P.3d 135 (Utah 2004) (establishes deference to legislative judgment in open courts analysis)
- Vega v. Jordan Valley Med. Ctr., LP, 449 P.3d 31 (Utah 2019) (endorses legislature’s concern over rising health care costs under similar uniform operation challenge)