From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Treyball v. Clark

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 12, 1985
65 N.Y.2d 589 (N.Y. 1985)

Summary

requiring admission of unanimous findings of panel does not infringe upon plaintiff's state constitutional right to a meaningful jury trial because findings are not binding upon jury and "jury ... remains the final arbiter of questions of fact raised at trial"

Summary of this case from In re S. N.H. Med. Ctr.

Opinion

Decided September 12, 1985

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Morrie Slifkin, J.

Paul F. McAloon for appellant.

Kevin M. Loftus for W. Douglas Clark, respondent.

Vincent J. Aceste and J. Russell Clune for Northern Westchester Hospital Center and Edward McNeil, respondents.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( Robert Hermann of counsel), in his statutory capacity under Executive Law § 71.


On this appeal, plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of Judiciary Law § 148-a (8), which authorizes any party to a medical malpractice action to admit in evidence the unanimous recommendation of a medical malpractice mediation panel as to the question of liability. It is contended that Judiciary Law § 148-a (8) deprives plaintiff of the right to a jury trial on the issue of liability (NY Const, art I, § 2), as well as the right to due process of law (NY Const, art I, § 6; U.S. Const 14th Amend).

Plaintiff's right to a meaningful jury trial, guaranteed by our State Constitution (art I, § 2) has not been infringed by operation of Judiciary Law § 148-a (8). The role of the medical malpractice mediation panel is to assist — not supplant — the trier of fact in reaching a verdict. ( Bernstein v Bodean, 53 N.Y.2d 520, 527.) Under the express terms of the statute, the panel's recommendation is not binding upon the trier of fact, and is to be accorded only such weight as the trier of fact chooses to ascribe to it (Judiciary Law § 148-a [8]) where such an instruction is requested. (PJI 2:151A, 2:151A.1 [1984 Supp].) Admission of the panel's recommendation interposes no obstacle to a full contestation of the issues, including liability, and the jury (or court when serving as trier of fact) remains the final arbiter of questions of fact raised at trial. ( See, Meeker Co. v Lehigh Val. R.R., 236 U.S. 412, 430; Woods v Holy Cross Hosp., 591 F.2d 1164, 1180 [5th Cir 1979] [construing Fla law]; Comiskey v Arlen, 55 A.D.2d 304, 308-310, affd 43 N.Y.2d 696; Note, Medical Malpractice Mediation Panels: A Constitutional Analysis, 46 Fordham L Rev 322, 331-334.) The unanimous, nonbinding recommendation of the medical malpractice mediation panel serves merely as a guide to the jury, and its admission as evidence does not impermissibly burden or nullify plaintiff's constitutional right to a meaningful jury trial.

It is further contended that Judiciary Law § 148-a (8) interferes with plaintiff's substantive right to damages for medical malpractice injuries by permitting the introduction as evidence of a recommendation reached by means of a hearing less formal than a judicial proceeding. (NY Const, art I, § 6; US Const 14th Amend.) This claim should be rejected. If the challenged provision is reasonable in relation to its subject and adopted in the interests of the community, it does not violate substantive due process. ( West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 391.) Only when a law effectuates an arbitrary deprivation of liberty will it violate the substantive due process guarantee. (Nowak, Rotunda and Young, Constitutional Law, at 410.) Judiciary Law § 148-a represents a legislative response to a perceived problem of increasing malpractice rates ( Bernstein v Bodean, 53 N.Y.2d 520, 526, supra) and serves to better equip the parties to mediate a settlement, if warranted, and preserve quality health care for residents of New York. Since the challenged statute manifestly has some fair, just and reasonable connection with the promotion of the health, comfort, safety and welfare of society, Judiciary Law § 148-a (8) does not violate plaintiff's right to due process of law. ( Nettleton Co. v Diamond, 27 N.Y.2d 182, 193, appeal dismissed sub nom. Reptile Prods. Assn. v Diamond, 401 U.S. 969; People v Pagnotta, 25 N.Y.2d 333, 337.) For the correction of alleged deficiencies in the statutory scheme, plaintiff's "appeal lies to the ballot and to the legislative processes of democratic government, not to the courts". ( Maresca v Cuomo, 64 N.Y.2d 242, 249.)

We have considered plaintiff's other contentions and find them to be either without merit or unpreserved.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges JASEN, MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE and ALEXANDER concur in Per Curiam opinion; Judge TITONE taking no part.

On review of the submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Treyball v. Clark

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 12, 1985
65 N.Y.2d 589 (N.Y. 1985)

requiring admission of unanimous findings of panel does not infringe upon plaintiff's state constitutional right to a meaningful jury trial because findings are not binding upon jury and "jury ... remains the final arbiter of questions of fact raised at trial"

Summary of this case from In re S. N.H. Med. Ctr.
Case details for

Treyball v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:DOROTHY TREYBALL, Individually and as Personal Representative of the…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Sep 12, 1985

Citations

65 N.Y.2d 589 (N.Y. 1985)
493 N.Y.S.2d 1004
483 N.E.2d 1136

Citing Cases

Gronne v. Abrams

As recently stated by the New York Court of Appeals, "Judiciary Law § 148-a represents a legislative response…

Keyes v. Humana Hosp. Alaska, Inc.

We join these jurisdictions in rejecting Keyes' jury trial attack on AS 09.55.536 on this ground, and note in…