Bingham v. Gourley

556 P.3d 53

2024 UT 38

Tiffany BINGHAM, Appellant,

v.George C. GOURLEY, D.O., and McKay L. Platt, M.D., Appellees.

No. 20230436

Supreme Court of Utah.

Heard April 15, 2024

Filed September 5, 2024

Fourth District, Provo, The Honorable Darold J. McDade, The Honorable Sean M. Petersen, No. 200401253

Stephen K. Christiansen, Kathleen M. Liuzzi, Joshua B. Cutler, M. Kelton Gardner, Salt Lake City, for appellant

Benjamin K. Lusty, Cami R. Schiel, Brian P. Miller, Andrew L. Roth, Salt Lake City, for appellee George C. Gourley, D.O.

Kirk G. Gibbs, Devin H. Geier, Salt Lake City, for appellee McKay L. Platt, M.D.

Justice Pohlman authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Durrant, Associate Chief Justice Pearce, Justice Petersen, and Justice Hagen joined.

Justice Pohlman, opinion of the Court:

INTRODUCTION

¶1 In this appeal, Tiffany Bingham challenges the constitutionality of the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act’s (the Malpractice Act) four-year statute of repose. See Utah Code § 78B-3-404(1). The statute requires a plaintiff to commence an action covered by the Malpractice Act "within two years after the plaintiff or patient discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury, whichever first occurs, but not to exceed four years after the date of the alleged act, omission, neglect, or occurrence." Id. (emphasis added).

¶2 Bingham, whose claim against her doctors was dismissed under this statute of repose, contends that the statute violates the Utah Constitution’s Open Courts Clause. Bingham also contends that the statute of repose is unconstitutional under both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution’s analog, the Uniform Operation of Laws Provision.

¶3 The doctors respond that the statute violates none of these provisions. But in the event we identify an open courts violation, the doctors ask us to overrule Berry ex rel. Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 717 P.2d 670 (Utah 1985), in which this court established a three-part test to analyze challenges under this clause of our state constitution.

¶4 We conclude that Bingham has not shown any constitutional violation, and, at this time, we do not reconsider our open courts caselaw. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Bingham’s claim.

BACKGROUND¹

[1] ¶5 In July 2010, Dr. George C. Gourley performed surgery on Bingham. After Bingham experienced post-operative complications, Gourley performed a second surgery, just eight days after the first, with Dr. McKay L. Platt assisting. For an extended period following the second surgery, Bingham continued to experience health problems. After eventually seeking out the care of another physician, Bingham underwent corrective surgery in November 2017. Bingham’s new physician found damage from the 2010 procedures, a discovery that led to the removal of her kidney.

¶6 In August 2020, Bingham sued Gourley and Platt (collectively, doctors). As relevant here, she brought a claim for negligence, alleging that the doctors breached the standard of care when treating her in 2010. She also alleged that she did not discover their breaches until November 2017. Recognizing that she had commenced her action more than "four years after the date of the alleged act, omission, neglect, or occurrence," Bingham also sought a declaration that the Malpractice Act’s four-year statute of repose is unconstitutional. (Citing Utah Code § 78B-3-404(1).)

¶7 Gourley and Platt moved to dismiss Bingham’s complaint. They argued that because she filed suit more than ten years after the alleged medical malpractice, her claim was time-barred by Utah Code subsection 78B-3-404(1), the Malpractice Act’s statute of repose. They also defended the constitutionality of the statute. In response, Bingham did not defend the timeliness of her claim. Instead, she argued the merits of her constitutional challenges and invited the court to declare the statute of repose unconstitutional. See Bright v. Sorensen, 2020 UT 18, ¶ 42, 463 P.3d 626 (stating that, in response to a motion to dismiss a facially untimely complaint, the plaintiff "must affirmatively advance an exception to the applicable statute of limitations to avoid dismissal" and bears the "burden of proof or persuasion").

¶8 After hearing arguments, the court agreed with the doctors, concluded that the statute of repose met constitutional muster, and dismissed Bingham’s negligence claim with prejudice. The court reasoned that the statute "does not violate the open courts clause because it is a non-arbitrary means of addressing a social or economic evil, which is set forth in [Utah Code section] 78B-3-402"— namely, "the prevention of increased costs related to medical malpractice insurance and patient insurance premiums caused by the increasing number of damages in medical malpractice lawsuits." The court similarly reasoned that the statute "doesn’t violate the uniform operation of laws clause because it substantially furthers the goals of the [Malpractice] Act." And the court decided that having ruled against Bingham on her uniform operation of laws claim, "an equal protection analysis [under the federal Constitution is] unnecessary because it would be less strict than using [the] uniform operation of law analysis." Still, the court noted that the statute "easily survives rational basis review." Bingham appeals.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶9 Bingham contends that the district court erred in granting the doctors’ motion to dismiss, asserting that Utah Code subsection 78B-3-404(1) is an unconstitutional statute of repose. In particular, she argues that the statute violates the Utah Constitution’s Open Courts Clause, see Utah Const. art. I, § 11, and its Uniform Operation of Laws Provision, see id. art. I, § 24. She also raises a related argument under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[2, 3] ¶10 We review the district court’s decision granting a motion to dismiss for correctness, giving no deference to its decision. Feldman v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2021 UT 4, ¶ 11, 484 P.3d 1134. Likewise, "we review the district court’s determination of the constitutionality of a statute for correctness." Id. ¶ 12.

ANALYSIS

[4] ¶11 In 1976, the Utah Legislature passed the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act. See Lee v. Gaufin, 867 P.2d 572, 584-85 (Utah 1993). As part of that Act, the legislature enacted Utah Code subsection 78B-3-404(1). It provides, "A malpractice action against a health care provider shall be commenced within two years after the plaintiff or patient discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury, whichever first occurs, but not to exceed four years after the date of the alleged act, omission, neglect, or occurrence." Utah Code § 78B-3-404(1) (emphasis added). This court has repeatedly said that this four-year limitation "functions as a statute of repose." Jensen v. Intermountain Healthcare, Inc., 2018 UT 27, ¶¶ 15, 18, 424 P.3d 885. That is, the four years "run[ ] from the time the negligent act is committed[,] and [the statute] terminates all legal remedies for malpractice not filed within four years, even if the injury caused by the malpractice could not have been discovered by the plaintiff or patient during that period."² Lee, 867 P.2d at 574-75.

[5] ¶12 Bingham commenced her action in 2020 for alleged negligence that occurred in 2010. Because this time frame exceeds the four years allowed by subsection 404(1), all parties agree that the statute bars her claim. Thus, the issue that was before the district court—and the issue now before us—is whether Bingham has established that the statute is unconstitutional under any of her theories, bearing in mind the general rule that "[a]ll statutes are presumed to be constitutional and the party challenging a statute bears the burden of proving its invalidity." Salt Lake City v. Kidd, 2019 UT 4, ¶ 21, 435 P.3d 248 (cleaned up).

¶13 We begin with Bingham’s open courts argument. We then turn to her uniform operation and related equal protection arguments. Without reconsidering our caselaw interpreting the relevant constitutional provisions, we conclude that Bingham has not shown that the district court erred in determining that Utah Code subsection 78B-3-404(1) does not infringe on constitutional rights. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s dismissal of Bingham’s complaint.

I. Bingham Has Not Established that the Malpractice Act’s Statute of Repose Fails Examination Under Our Open Courts Jurisprudence

¶14 Bingham first contends that the Malpractice Act’s statute of repose violates the Utah Constitution’s Open Courts Clause "by effectively eliminating an existing legal remedy without providing a reasonable alternative remedy and without a clear social or economic evil to be eliminated." She further argues that the statute’s "time limit is arbitrary and unreasonable on its face because the four-year bar will inevitably deny a significant number of individuals, like Bingham, their right to seek redress for legal injuries that are yet to be discovered." We conclude that Bingham has not shown that Utah Code subsection 78B-3-404(1) violates the Open Courts Clause.

¶15 The Open Courts Clause states, "All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to the person in his or her person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, which shall be administered without denial or unnecessary delay; and no person shall be barred from prosecuting or defending before any tribunal in this State, with or without counsel, any civil cause to which the person is a party." Utah Const. art. I, § 11. In Berry ex rel. Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 717 P.2d 670 (Utah 1985), we held that although "the Legislature has great latitude in defining, changing, and modernizing the law," the Open Courts Clause limits that legislative power ...