In re Southern New Hampshire Medical Center
164 N.H. 319
| N.H. | 2012Background
- This is a petition for original jurisdiction challenging RSA 519-B:8-:10 as unconstitutional under the Separation of Powers Clause and Article 20 of the New Hampshire Constitution.
- The underlying action is a medical malpractice suit; a medical injury screening panel was convened and found no deviation from the standard of care.
- The trial court granted relief on separation-of-powers grounds; the defendants sought interlocutory review.
- The plaintiff Estate Parker argued the challenged provisions violate Article 20’s jury trial right; the court granted partial relief and remanded.
- The majority affirms the trial court on separation-of-powers grounds, but holds certain provisions infringe the state jury-trial right, and provides narrowed relief.
- The court declines to address additional arguments not preserved in the trial court and remands for further consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do RSA 519-B:8-:10 violate the Separation of Powers Clause? | Parker argues the provisions usurp core judicial functions. | SNHMC/Bettencourt contend the legislature may regulate court procedure. | No, the statute does not violate the Separation of Powers. |
| Do RSA 519-B:8-:10 infringe the state jury trial right under Article I, Part 1, Article 20? | Admitting panel findings at trial impairs the jury’s fact-finding role. | Panel findings are admissible as evidence but not binding; jury retains full fact-finding power. | Portions of RSA 519-B:8,1(a), RSA 519-B:8, III, and RSA 519-B:9,1(f) violate Article 20; others retained. |
| Which specific provisions violate Article 20 and to what extent? | Unconstitutional: (1) RSA 519-B:8,1(a) to the extent it bars admissible evidence; (2) RSA 519-B:8, III to the extent it bars calling expert witnesses; (3) RSA 519-B:9,1(f) to the extent it restricts panel-related testimony; other aspects preserved. | ||
| Did the Court need to decide preservation/ripe arguments not raised below? | Arguments were raised but not preserved for review. | Not argued or preserved, hence not reviewable. | declined to address those arguments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Petition of George, 160 N.H. 699 (2010) (construes scope of constitutional challenges to statutes)
- State v. Merrill, 160 N.H. 467 (2010) (separation-of-powers analysis and defining usurpation)
- Murphy & Sons, Inc. v. Peters, 95 N.H. 275 (1948) (jury trial right preserved; standard for review)
- King v. Hopkins, 57 N.H. 334 (1876) (historical view on jury trial and evidentiary rules)
- State v. Ploof, 162 N.H. 609 (2011) (statutory review and constitutional questions)
- Irish v. Gimbel, 691 A.2d 664 (Me. 1997) (evidentiary-rule-admissibility context for panel findings)
- Zamora v. Price, 213 P.3d 490 (Nev. 2009) (admissibility of panel findings and jury trial impact)
- Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R.R., 236 U.S. 412 (1915) (manage jury trial rights in administrative decisions)