No. 80-19
I N T H E SUPREME COURT O F T H E S T A T E O F MONTANA
1981
BRUCE L I N D E R ,
Plaintiff,
C. W. S M I T H , M.D. ; ROGER MURRAY, M.D. ;
a n d t h e MONTANA MEDICAL A S S O C I A T I O N , a
M o n t a n a corporation,
Defendant.
O R I G I N A L PROCEEDING:
C o u n s e l of R e c o r d :
For P l a i n t i f f :
Hon. M i k e G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana
D o u g l a s R. D r y s d a l e , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a
R. P. R y a n a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , M o n t a n a
For D e f e n d a n t s :
G e r a l d N e e l y argued, B i l l i n g s , M o n t a n a
Bruce Toole, B i l l i n g s , Montana
For A m i c u s C u r i a e :
L u x a n and M u r f i t t L a w F i r m , Helena, Montana
Submitted: M a r c h 23, 1981
Decided: dull 1 0
Filed: dpk!$.Oa8l
r n M , O &
Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e
Court.
P l a i n t i f f L i n d e r s e e k s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e c o n s t i t u -
t i o n a l i t y o f t h e Montana M e d i c a l M a l p r a c t i c e P a n e l A c t , sect i o n s
27-6-101 e t seq., MCA. T h i s Court accepted o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n
o f t h e c a u s e i n a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment p r o c e e d i n g . We find t h a t
t h e a c t is c o n s t i t u t i o n a l w i t h o n e e x c e p t i o n a s h e r e a f t e r n o t e d .
P l a i n t i f f L i n d e r a l l e g e d l y s u f f e r e d an i n j u r y w h i l e he w a s
a p a t i e n t o f D r . Roger Murray. H i s claim a g a i n s t t h e d o c t o r
c o n s t i t u t e s a " m a l p r a c t i c e c l a i m " w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of sect i o n
27-6-103(2), MCA, and by s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s h o u l d h a v e b e e n
f i l e d with the panel. S e c t i o n 27-6-105, MCA. P l a i n t i f f r e f used
t o s u b m i t h i s claim t o t h e p a n e l , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e P a n e l A c t is
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l on its f a c e .
The p a n e l was c r e a t e d by t h e 1 9 7 7 l e g i s l a t u r e and i s com-
p o s e d o f t h r e e l a w y e r s and t h r e e h e a l t h care p r o v i d e r s . The
a r t i c u l a t e d purposes of t h e panel are t o s c r e e n m a l p r a c t i c e
claims i n o r d e r t o p r e v e n t t h e f i l i n g i n c o u r t o f a c t i o n s which
d o n o t " p e r m i t a t l e a s t a r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e of m a l p r a c t i c e "
a n d t o p r o m o t e s e t t l e m e n t o f m e r i t o r i o u s claims. Section
27-6-102, MCA. A c l a i m a n t m u s t s u b m i t h i s claim t o t h e p a n e l
p r i o r t o f i l i n g i n c o u r t , s e c t i o n 27-6-301, MCA, but the claimant
i s n o t bound by t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e p a n e l , s e c t i o n 27-6-606, MCA,
n o r is t h e d e c i s i o n a d m i s s i b l e i n a s u b s e q u e n t j u d i c i a l a c t i o n ,
s e c t i o n 27-6-704, MCA.
P l a i n t i f f c h a l l e n g e s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e act o n
its face, alleging violations of:
(1) t h e r i g h t t o a j u r y t r i a l ;
( 2 ) t h e r i g h t o f access to t h e c o u r t s ;
(3) s u b s t a n t i v e and p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s ;
(4) the prohibition against special legislation;
( 5 ) e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n of t h e laws;
( 6 ) t h e p r i n c i p l e of s e p a r a t i o n of powers;
( 7 ) t h e t a x i n g powers;
( 8 ) t h e r i g h t o f p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n and t h e r i g h t t o
know;
( 9 ) f r e e d o m o f s p e e c h and f r e e d o m from l i b e l .
P l a i n t i f f ' s f i r s t c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t t h e m a n d a t o r y sub-
m i s s i o n of c l a i m s to t h e panel u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n t e r f e r e s w i t h
h i s r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y , a s g u a r a n t e e d by 1 9 7 2 Mont. C o n s t . ,
A r t 11, § 26. D e f e n d a n t s a r g u e t h a t a c l a i m a n t is f r e e t o con-
t i n u e t o j u r y t r i a l no matter what t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e p a n e l , and
t h e j u r y remains t h e f i n a l d e t e r m i n e r of f a c t . Further, the
p a n e l d e c i s i o n is n o t b i n d i n g , n o r is it a d m i s s i b l e a t t r i a l .
T h u s , t h e r e is no i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h t h e j u r y t r i a l p r o c e s s .
D e f e n d a n t s a r g u e t h a t s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e p a n e l is m e r e l y a p e r -
m i s s i b l e d e l a y i n t h e p a t h to t h e u l t i m a t e j u r y v e r d i c t . We
agree.
The Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n g u a r a n t e e s t h e l i t i g a n t t h e r i g h t
t o t r i a l by j u r y . T h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t t h e r i g h t t o t r i a l by
j u r y i n t h i s s t a t e is t h e same as t h a t g u a r a n t e e d by t h e S e v e n t h
Amendment. C o n s o l i d a t e d Gold & S a p p h i r e Mining Co . v . Struthers
( 1 9 1 0 ) , 4 1 Mont. 5 6 5 , 571, 1 1 P. 1 5 2 , 1 5 5 .
1 In determining the
e x t e n t o f t h i s r i g h t , t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s have focused on pre-
s e r v i n g t h e r i g h t o f t r i a l by j u r y , r a t h e r than the incidents
i n v o l v e d i n c a r r y i n g o u t t h a t r i g h t ; i t i s a matter o f s u b s t a n c e ,
r a t h e r t h a n form. C o l g r o v e v. B a t t i n ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 4 1 3 U.S. 149,
155-156, 93 S.Ct. 2448, 2452, 37 L.Ed.2d 522, 528.
The p u r p o s e o f t h e j u r y i n c i v i l c a s e s is to a s s u r e a f a i r
and e q u i t a b l e r e s o l u t i o n of f a c t u a l i s s u e s . Colgrove , s u p r a , 413
U.S. a t 157, 93 S.Ct. a t 2453, 37 L.Ed.2d a t 529. Therefore,
c h a n g e s which a f f e c t t h e form, b u t n o t t h e s u b s t a n c e of t h e r i g h t
may p a s s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l m u s t e r . J u s t i c e Brandeis, i n approving
t h e u s e o f a n a u d i t o r t o n a r r o w t h e i s s u e s o f f a c t f o r a j u r y and
t o e x p r e s s an o p i n i o n on t h e f a c t s , noted:
"The command o f t h e 7 t h Amendment t h a t ' t h e r i g h t
o f t r i a l by j u r y s h a l l be p r e s e r v e d ' d o e s n o t r e q u i r e
t h a t o l d f o r m s o f p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e be r e t a i n e d .
W a l k e r v. N e w Mexico & S o u t h e r n P a c i f i c R. R. Co.,
1 6 5 U.S. 593, 596. Compare T w i n i n g v . N e w J e r s e y ,
2 1 1 U.S. 78, 1 0 1 . It does not p r o h i b i t the introduc-
t i o n o f new m e t h o d s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g w h a t f a c t s a r e
a c t u a l l y i n i s s u e , n o r does it p r o h i b i t t h e i n t r o d u c -
t i o n o f new r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e . C h a n g e s i n t h e s e may
b e made. N e w d e v i c e s may be used to a d a p t t h e
a n c i e n t i n s t i t u t i o n to p r e s e n t n e e d s and to make o f
it an e f f i c i e n t i n s t r u m e n t i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of
justice. I n d e e d , s u c h c h a n g e s a r e e s s e n t i a l to t h e
p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e r i g h t . The l i m i t a t i o n imposed by
t h e Amendment is m e r e l y t h a t e n j o y m e n t o f t h e r i g h t
o f t r i a l by j u r y be n o t o b s t r u c t e d , and t h a t t h e
u l t i m a t e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f i s s u e s o f f a c t by t h e j u r y
b e not i n t e r f e r e d with." Ex parte P e t e r s o n ( 1 9 2 0 ) ,
253 U.S. 300, 309-310, 40 S . C t . 543, 546, 6 4 L.Ed
9 1 9 , 923-924.
The Montana C o u r t and o t h e r c o u r t s h a v e a p p r o v e d v a r i o u s
p r e t r i a l p r o c e d u r e s which burden t h e c l a i m a n t i n h i s e f f o r t s t o
g e t into court. The r e q u i r e m e n t o f a p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e d o e s
not violate the jury trial right. S t a t e ex re1 . Kennedy v.
D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 1 2 1 Mont. 320, 1 9 4 P.2d 256; s u b m i t t i n g a
c a s e t o a master p r i o r to g i v i n g it t o t h e j u r y d o e s n o t v i o l a t e
t h e S e v e n t h Amendment. Crateo, Inc. v. Intermark, Inc. (9th Cir.
1 9 7 6 ) , 536 F.2d 8 6 2 , 867-868, cert.denied 429 U.S. 896, 97 S.Ct.
259, 50 L.Ed.2d 1 8 0 ; R u l e 5 3 , M.R.Civ.P.
S e v e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a v e a d d r e s s e d t h e p r o b l e m of
allowing the panel's findings into evidence i n a subsequent
t r i a l , questioning whether t h i s p r a c t i c e i n t e r f e r e s with the
jury's fact-finding role. A N e w York Supreme C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d
t h a t t h e j u r y is s t i l l t h e f i n a l a r b i t e r , w i t h t h e p a n e l ' s o p i n -
ion being t r e a t e d a s merely another expert opinion. Comiskey v .
A r l e n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 55 A.D.2d 304, 390 N.Y.S. 1 2 2 , 127-128. See a l s o
Woods v. Holy C r o s s H o s p i t a l ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 9 ) , 5 9 1 F. 2d 1 1 6 4 ,
1179-1180. I n Montana, t h e p a n e l I s d e c i s i o n is n o t a d m i s s i b l e ,
t h u s p r e c l u d i n g t h e claim t h a t t h e r e is a n y u s u r p a t i o n o f t h e
jury function.
W e f i n d no v i o l a t i o n o f t h e r i g h t to a j u r y t r i a l .
C l a i m a n t g e t s a f u l l and f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s claim i n a
jury trial setting. R e q u i r i n g p l a i n t i f f to b e g i n t h e p r o c e s s by
s u b m i t t i n g h i s c l a i m t o t h e p a n e l is a p e r m i s s i b l e i n t e r f e r e n c e
with the jury trial right. See North Central S e r v i c e s , Inc. v
Hafdahl (1981), Mont . , 625 P.2d 5 6 , 58-59, 38 S t . R e p .
3 7 2 , 374-375. S e e a l s o Woods, s u p r a ; J o h n s o n v. St. Vincent
Hospital, Inc. (1980), Ind . , 404 N.E.2d 585, 591-593;
E a s t i n v. B r o o m f i e l d ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 1 6 A r i z . 576, 5 7 0 P.2d 744,
748-749; P a r o v. Longwood H o s p i t a l ( 1 9 7 7 ) , Mass. , 369
N.E.2d 9 8 5 , 991.
P l a i n t i f f n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e P a n e l A c t d e n i e s him h i s
r i g h t o f access t o t h e c o u r t s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 9 7 2 Mont. Const.
Art. 11 16. D e f e n d a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e d e l a y s and c o s t s a r e
n o t s o s u b s t a n t i a l so a s to d e n y access, and t h a t t h e d e l a y s and
c o s t s a r e imposed f o r r a t i o n a l r e a s o n s .
Many o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t h i s q u e s t i o n ,
and w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of t h e Missouri A c t , a l l o t h e r panel acts
have been upheld a g a i n s t t h i s c h a l l e n g e . See P a r o , s u p r a , 369
N.E.2d a t 989-990; S t a t e e x r e l . S t r y k o w s k i v. W i l k i e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 8 1
Wis.2d 491, 2 6 1 N.W.2d 434, 444; P r e n d e r g a s t v. N e l s o n ( 1 9 7 7 ) ,
1 9 9 Neb. 97, 256 N.W.2d 6 5 7 , 663-664; Woods, s u p r a , 5 9 1 F.2d at
1 1 7 3 , f n . 16; J o h n s o n , s u p r a , 404 N.E.2d a t 592, and 593-596;
Carter v. Sparkman ( 1 9 7 6 ) , Fla .-, 3 3 5 So.2d 8 0 2 , 805-806.
The c o u r t s a d d r e s s i n g t h i s i s s u e h a v e n o t e d t h a t access t o
t h e c o u r t s is n o t a n i n d e p e n d e n t f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t ; access i s
o n l y g i v e n s u c h a s t a t u s when a n o t h e r f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t - - s u c h as
t h e r i g h t to d i s s o l v e t h e marital r e l a t i o n s h i p - - i s a t i s s u e , and
n o a l t e r n a t i v e f o r u m e x i s t s i n which t o e n f o r c e t h a t r i g h t .
M
dcx44-e v. C o n n e c t i c u t ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 4 0 1 U.S. 371, 9 1 S.Ct. 7 8 0 , 28
L.Ed.2d 113. I n cases n o t i n v o l v i n g a f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t , access
may be h i n d e r e d i f t h e r e e x i s t s a r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r d o i n g so.
Woods, s u p r a ; P a r o , s u p r a ; O r t w e i n v. Schwab ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 4 1 0 U.S.
656, 9 3 S . C t . 1 1 7 2 , 35 L.Ed.2d 572. Thus t h e p a n e l a c t s h a v e
b e e n u p h e l d a g a i n s t t h e access c h a l l e n g e , b e c a u s e t h e c o u r t s h a v e
f o u n d f i n d a r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r t h e d e l a y s and e x p e n s e .
I n a l l instances, the a r t i c u l a t e d b a s i s f o r the panel
a c t s h a s b e e n t h e m a l p r a c t i c e c r i s i s e x i s t i n g i n many s t a t e s ,
w i t h t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n i n t e n d e d a s a means to l i m i t m a l p r a c t i c e
f i l i n g s t o t h o s e which a r e c l e a r l y m e r i t o r i o u s . We find t h a t the
Montana A c t was e n a c t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e f o r t h e same r e a s o n .
B e c a u s e o f t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f t h i s case, and i n v i e w o f t h e
f a c t t h a t we accepted o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , we appointed a
Master t o a c t as f a c t - f i n d e r f o r t h i s Court. H e heard testimony
and a c c e p t e d e x h i b i t s , and i s s u e d f i n d i n g s w h i c h were s u b -
s e q u e n t l y a d o p t e d by t h i s C o u r t . H i s r e p o r t shows t h a t a m e d i c a l
m a l p r a c t i c e c r i s i s e x i s t s i n t h e S t a t e o f Montana, n o t i n g t h a t
M o n t a n a ' s i n s u r a n c e r a t e is c i t e d a s 1 7 t h h i g h e s t i n t h e U n i t e d
S t a t e s , and t h a t t h e r e is a n enormous i n c r e a s e i n p h y s i c i a n s
c a r r y i n g no i n s u r a n c e . He determined t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i o n w a s
e n a c t e d i n r e s p o n s e t o t h i s c r i s i s and to g u a r a n t e e q u a l i t y
h e a l t h care t o M o n t a n a n s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , we n o t e t h a t i n 1976 t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e a u t h o r i z e d a n i n t e r i m l e g i s l a t i v e committee to r e p o r t
t o t h e 1 9 7 7 l e g i s l a t u r e on t h e m e d i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n Montana.
T h a t committee compiled a r e p o r t i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e
m e d i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n Montana " a p p e a r s t o be l e s s c r i t i c a l t h a n i n
many o t h e r s t a t e s , " y e t premium c o s t s a r e e v e r i n c r e a s i n g and t h e
a v a i l a b i l i t y of c o v e r a g e is of " p r e s s i n g concern." The h e a r i n g s
o f t h e 1977 l e g i s l a t u r e i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p a n e l a c t w a s e n a c t e d
i n response t o t h i s s i t u a t i o n .
The f i n d i n g s o f t h e M a s t e r and t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d to
the l e g i s l a t u r e c o n v i n c e s u s t h a t t h e P a n e l A c t is a r e a s o n a b l e
r e s p o n s e t o t h e m e d i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n Montana. Because t h e d e l a y s
and expense a r e n o t u n r e a s o n a b l e i n l i g h t of t h e aims of t h e sta-
t u t e w e f i n d no i m p e r m i s s i b l e b u r d e n o n access.
T h i s Court h a s upheld v a r i o u s o t h e r l e g i s l a t i v e enactments
w h i c h d e l a y o r b u r d e n t h e r i g h t o f access. Without d e f i n i n g t h e
s t a t u s of t h e r i g h t of a c c e s s , n o r s p e c i f i c a l l y s e t t i n g o u t t h e
permissible l e g i s l a t i v e reasons f o r r e s t r i c t i n g access, t h i s
C o u r t approved t h e r e q u i r e m e n t of a p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e .
C a r l i n v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 4 5 ) , 1 1 8 Mont. 1 2 7 , 1 6 4 P.2d
155. S e e a l s o S o u d e r s v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 92 Mont.
272, 1 2 P.2d 8 5 2 , i n w h i c h t h i s C o u r t a p p r o v e d t h e s t a t u t e
r e q u i r i n g p l a i n t i f f t o make a d e p o s i t w i t h t h e c o u r t b e f o r e pro-
s e c u t i n g a t a x deed a c t i o n . O t h e r s t a t e s have noted t h a t it is
reasonable t o require p a r t i e s t o seek administrative r e s o l u t i o n s
b e f o r e g o i n g t o c o u r t , S t r y k o w s k i , s u p r a , 2 6 1 N.W.2d a t 444, and
t h a t a bond may be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y r e q u i r e d b e f o r e a c l a i m a n t
t a k e s a m a l p r a c t i c e claim t o c o u r t . P a r o , s u p r a 369 N.E. 2d a t
989-990. The F l o r i d a c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d i n C a r t e r , s u p r a , t h a t t h e
c o s t s and d e l a y s i n v o l v e d i n t h e p a n e l p r o c e d u r e a r e p r i m a r i l y
r e l a t e d t o d i s c o v e r y and would be n e c e s s a r y i n p r e p a r i n g to go to
c o u r t anyway, and t h u s a r e r e a s o n a b l e .
The p l a i n t i f f u r g e s t h i s C o u r t t o f o l l o w Madison v. Yunker
(1978)1 Mont . , 589 P.2d 1 2 6 , 3 5 S t . R e p . 1311, i n
w h i c h w e found a n u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e n i a l o f a c c e s s i n t h e
r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a p l a i n t i f f demand a r e t r a c t i o n from a n a l l e g e d
l i b e l e r before f i l i n g s u i t . W e f i n d t h a t case to be d i s t i n g u i s h -
a b l e f r o m t h e i n s t a n t case i n t h a t t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o -
v i d e s e v e r y p e r s o n w i t h a n i n d e p e n d e n t r i g h t o f e x p r e s s i o n sub-
ject t o b e i n g r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l a b u s e s o f t h a t l i b e r t y . The
s t a t u t e i n Madison a l s o c h a n g e d t h e remedy f o r l i b e l w h i c h was
provided elsewhere i n the Constitution. 1972 Mont. C o n s t . , Art.
11, S $ 7 and 1 6 . The M a l p r a c t i c e P a n e l A c t d o e s n o t of f e n d s u c h
constitutional provisions.
One c o u r t h a s s t r u c k down i t s s t a t u t e f i n d i n g t h a t t h e
r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e a c t imposed " u s e l e s s and a r b i t r a r y d e l a y . "
The M i s s o u r i c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e d e l a y c o u l d d e s t r o y t h e
p l a i n t i f f ' s r e m e d i e s by a b r i d g i n g t h e r i g h t t o f i l e s u i t i m m e -
d i a t e l y , which c o u l d r e s u l t i n loss of p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e o v e r
defendants. S e e S t a t e ex re1 . C a r d i n a l G l e n n o n Memorial
H o s p i t a l v. G a e r t n e r ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mo . , 583 S.W.2d 107,
110. P l a i n t i f f h e r e a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e c o u l d be p r o b l e m s
w i t h t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s b e c a u s e of t h e n e c e s s i t y of
f i l i n g w i t h t h e p a n e l b e f o r e going to c o u r t .
W e are n o t u n m i n d f u l o f t h e s e p r o b l e m s . However, w e d o
n o t f i n d t h a t t h e s t a t u t e s i n Montana would n e c e s s a r i l y b r i n g
about these unfortunate r e s u l t s . S e c t i o n 27-6-702, MCA, states
t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s i s t o l l e d upon r e c e i p t o f t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e p a n e l and d o e s n o t b e g i n a g a i n u n t i l e n t r y o f
a n d s e r v i c e on t h e p a r t i e s o f t h e p a n e l ' s d e c i s i o n . We construe
t h a t s t a t u t e t o a p p l y t o d e f e n d a n t s b o t h known and unknown a t t h e
time t h e a p p l i c a t i o n is f i l e d w i t h t h e p a n e l .
A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e Montana R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e allow
t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f a p o t e n t i a l w i t n e s s to be t a k e n p r i o r to f i l i n g
s u i t in court. R u l e 27, M.R.Civ.P. A plaintiff, fearing t h a t a
d e f e n d a n t may l e a v e t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n , c a n p e t i t i o n t h e c o u r t f o r
a n o r d e r a l l o w i n g him t o p r e s e r v e s u c h t e s t i m o n y .
I n sum, w e f i n d s u f f i c i e n t s a f e g u a r d s w i t h i n t h e a c t t o
p r o t e c t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s r i g h t of access t o t h e c o u r t . The b u r -
d e n s imposed a r e r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e aims of t h e a c t and
t h e a c t c o n s t i t u t e s a r e a s o n a b l e r e s p o n s e to t h e m e d i c a l
situation.
N e x t , p l a i n t i f f c h a l l e n g e s t h e a c t as b e i n g v i o l a t i v e of
p l a i n t i f f ' s r i g h t s t o s u b s t a n t i v e and p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s . He
d o e s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y set f o r t h h i s due p r o c e s s c l a i m s b u t he
a p p e a r s t o d i s p u t e t h a t a n y b a s i s was shown t o e x i s t which would
j u s t i f y t h i s type of l e g i s l a t i o n . T h e r e is a g r e e m e n t among a l l
c o u r t s c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n , save North Dakota, t h a t t h e
l e g i s l a t i o n was a d o p t e d t o meet a c r i s i s i n m e d i c a l c a r e , and
t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i o n a p p e a r s t o be a r a t i o n a l r e s p o n s e to t h a t
crisis. S e e Woods, s u p r a , 5 9 1 F. 2d a t 1175-1176; Prendergast,
s u p r a , 256 N.W.2d a t 667-669. The N o r t h D a k o t a Supreme C o u r t
f o u n d t h a t no s u c h c r i s i s had b e e n shown to e x i s t i n N o r t h
D a k o t a , and i n v a l i d a t e d t h e s t a t e s t a t u t e i n p a r t o n t h i s b a s i s .
A r n e s o n v. O l s o n ( 1 9 7 8 ) , N . D. , 270 N.W.2d 125, 136.
The s t a n d a r d a r t i c u l a t e d by m o s t c o u r t s i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e
l e g i s l a t i o n i n l i g h t o f t h e s u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s claim i s t h e
"rational b a s i s standard," i.e., t h e l e g i s l a t i o n w i l l be u p h e l d
i f t h e laws h a v e a r e a s o n a b l e r e l a t i o n t o a p r o p e r l e g i s l a t i v e
purpose. Woods, s u p r a , 5 9 1 F. 2d a t 1 1 7 6 ; N e b b i a v. New York
( 1 9 3 4 ) , 291 U . S . 502, 536-537, 54 S . C t . 505, 515-516, 7 8 L.Ed.
9 4 0 , 956-957. B u t see A r n e s o n , s u p r a , 270 N.W.2d a t 132-133,
u t i l i z i n g a s t a n d a r d f a l l i n g somewhere b e t w e e n " s t r i c t
s c r u t i n y " and " r a t i o n a l b a s i s ." W e s u b s c r i b e to t h e r a t i o n a l
b a s i s s t a n d a r d and f i n d t h a t t h e P a n e l A c t m e e t s t h i s t e s t i n
l i g h t o f t h e s i t u a t i o n e x i s t i n g i n Montana, a s i d e n t i f i e d by t h e
Master and t h e l e g i s l a t u r e .
A s we noted i n o u r d i s c u s s i o n a b o v e , w e are s a t i s f i e d t h a t
s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e w a s c o n s i d e r e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n d e t e r -
mining t h a t t h e r e w a s a n e a r - c r i s i s s i t u a t i o n i n Montana. We
w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e o u r judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e .
A s i d e from t h e a c c e s s p r o b l e m w h i c h is i n h e r e n t l y a p r o c e -
d u r a l due p r o c e s s problem, p l a i n t i f f asserts a d e n i a l of due pro-
cess by r e a s o n o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f d o c t o r s o n t h e p a n e l . He
claims a b u i l t - i n b i a s i n t h e s y s t e m , which p r e v e n t s a c l a i m a n t
from r e c e i v i n g a f a i r h e a r i n g .
W e n o t e a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t t h e Montana P a n e l A c t , unlike
the legislation in other jurisdictions, precludes the introduc-
t i o n i n t o e v i d e n c e a t a s u b s e q u e n t t r i a l , of t h e p a n e l I s findings
or decisions. Thus t h e o n l y e f f e c t o f t h e p a n e l ' s d e c i s i o n o n a
plaintiff I s case would be t o d i s c o u r a g e him f r o m t a k i n g h i s claim
t o court. Even i n t h o s e s t a t e s i n which t h e d e c i s i o n is
admissible a t a later trial, the courts considering t h i s issue
h a v e f o u n d a n i n s u f f i c i e n t showing o f b i a s o r p r e j u d i c e t o amount
t o a d e n i a l of d u e p r o c e s s . And, i n o r d e r t o e f f e c t u a t e t h e p u r -
p o s e s o f t h e p a n e l , it is a d v i s a b l e t o h a v e m e d i c a l p e r s o n n e l o n
t h e panel. S t r y k o w s k i , s u p r a , 261 N.W.2d a t 446. Additionally,
it is t o t a l l y s p e c u l a t i v e to a l l e g e t h a t a l l h e a l t h care p r o v i -
d e r s a r e i n c a p a b l e o f r e n d e r i n g a n u n b i a s e d d e c i s i o n , and a
c l a i m a n t h a s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s q u a l i f y a n y member who i s i n
f a c t s u b j e c t t o t h e charge of b i a s . S e c t i o n 27-6-404(2), MCA.
S e e a l s o J o h n s o n , s u p r a , 404 N.E.2d a t 593; H i n e s v. E l k h a r t
G e n e r a l H o s p i t a l (N.D. I n d . 1 9 7 9 ) , 4 6 5 F.Supp. 421, 429.
W e f i n d c l a i m a n t ' s d u e p r o c e s s c o n t e n t i o n s to be w i t h o u t
m e r i t , p a r t i c u l a r l y when c o n s i d e r e d i n v i e w o f t h e l i m i t e d e f f e c t
w h i c h t h e p a n e l ' s d e c i s i o n c a n h a v e i n Montana i n s u b s e q u e n t
l i t i g a t i o n . W e do a d d r e s s o n e i s s u e , t h o u g h , which was n o t i n i -
t i a l l y r a i s e d by t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e l i t i g a t i o n , b u t w h i c h came t o
o u r a t t e n t i o n d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g i n t h i s case. Section
27-6-704(2), MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ n o ] s t a t e m e n t made by a n y p e r s o n
d u r i n g a h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e p a n e l may be used as i m p e a c h i n g e v i -
dence i n court ." I n o r d e r t o uphold the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e
p a n e l a c t , w e d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h i s s e c t i o n m u s t be s e v e r e d from
t h e act. I t is f u n d a m e n t a l t o o u r a d v e r s a r i a l s y s t e m t h a t l i t i -
g a n t s r e t a i n t h e r i g h t to impeach t h e s w o r n t e s t i m o n y of a w i t -
n e s s t e s t i f y i n g a g a i n s t them. W are mindful t h a t t h i s p r o v i s i o n
e
was e n a c t e d t o a i d t h e f a c t - f i n d i n g by t h e p a n e l and to p r e s e r v e
t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of t h e proceedings. But w e c a n n o t s a y t h a t a
l i t i g a n t w i l l r e c e i v e a f u l l and f a i r h e a r i n g i f h e is u n a b l e t o
f u l l y cross-examine in court the witnesses t h a t testified i n the
p r i o r hearing .
T h i s d e f e c t is n o t f a t a l to t h e a c t . W f i n d t h a t t h e act
e
i s s t i l l c o m p l e t e i n i t s e l f and c a p a b l e of b e i n g e x e c u t e d i n
accordance with the l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t .
C l a i m a n t ' s n e x t c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t t h e P a n e l A c t c o n s t i t u -
t e s s p e c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n and t h a t it v i o l a t e s t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n
g u a r a n t e e o f t h e 1 9 7 2 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e F o u r t e e n t h
Amendment. H e does n o t p i n p o i n t t h e b a s i s of h i s c h a l l e n g e , b u t
a p p a r e n t l y he i s a r g u i n g t h a t t h e m e d i c a l p r o f e s s i o n a s a g r o u p
o f p o t e n t i a l t o r t d e f e n d a n t s is g e t t i n g s p e c i a l t r e a t m e n t n o t
a c c o r d e d t o o t h e r t o r t d e f e n d a n t s , and t h a t m e d i c a l l y - i n j u r e d
p l a i n t i f f s are b e i n g s u b j e c t e d t o b a r r i e r s t o t h e j u d i c i a l
s y s t e m , n o t p u t i n t h e way o f o t h e r t o r t p l a i n t i f f s .
T h i s Court has indicated t h a t reasonable c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s
o f p e r s o n s w i l l be u p h e l d a g a i n s t a " s p e c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n "
c h a l l e n g e , or a g a i n s t an e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c h a l l e n g e . S t a t e ex
r e l . S p a r l i n g v. H i t s m a n ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 99 Mont. 5 2 1 , 532, 44 P.2d 7 4 7 ,
752; S t a t e v . C r a i g ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 6 9 Mont. 1 5 0 , 1 5 6 , 5 4 5 P.2d 6 4 9 ,
652-653. A l a w w h i c h o p e r a t e s i n t h e same manner upon a l l per-
s o n s i n l i k e circumstances is not " s p e c i a l " i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
sense. Sparling, supra. Other c o u r t s considering t h i s challenge
h a v e determined t h a t t h i s t y p e of l e g i s l a t i o n is n o t s p e c i a l
l e g i s l a t i o n , n o r i s it v i o l a t i v e o f e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n , b e c a u s e i t
o p e r a t e s u n i f o r m l y o n a g i v e n c l a s s which h a s b e e n d i s t i n g u i s h e d
f o r r a t i o n a l reasons. E a s t i n , s u p r a , 570 P.2d a t 7 5 2 ; J o h n s o n ,
s u p r a , 404 N.E.2d a t 596-597.
T h o s e c o u r t s c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s e q u e s t i o n s i n r e l a t i o n to
t h e p a n e l a c t s h a v e d e a l t w i t h t h e s p e c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n and e q u a l
p r o t e c t i o n arguments on a s i m i l a r b a s i s - - l o o k i n g for a rational
b a s i s f o r t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s which rests o n a g r o u n d o f d i f -
f e r e n c e h a v i n g a f a i r and s u b s t a n t i a l r e l a t i o n t o t h e o b j e c t of
the legislation. L e u t h o l d v. B r a n d j o r d e t a l . ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 1 0 0 Mont.
9 6 , 1 0 5 , 47 P.2d 41, 45; P a r o , s u p r a , 3 6 9 N.E.2d a t 987-89 and
f o o t n o t e 6 ; E a s t i n , s u p r a , 570 P.2d a t 750-751; Johnson, s u p r a ,
404 N.E.2d a t 596-597, c i t i n g R o y s t e r Guano C o . v . V i r g i n i a ( 1 9 2 0 ) ,
253 U.S. 412, 40 S . C t . 560, 64 L.Ed. 989. W e a g r e e t h a t t h i s is
t h e p r o p e r t e s t t o a p p l y i n t h i s case. T h e r e is no a l l e g a t i o n o f
a f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t a t s t a k e , n o r is t h e r e a s u s p e c t c l a s s i f i c a -
t i o n involved. T h e r e f o r e w e need o n l y d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n is r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d to a l e g i t i m a t e s t a t e
interest. S t a t e v. C r a i g , s u p r a , 1 6 9 Mont. a t 155-157, 5 4 5 P.2d
a t 652-653.
The b u r d e n is o n t h e p a r t y c h a l l e n g i n g t h e l e g i s l a t i o n to
show t h a t t h e f a c t s d o n o t s u p p o r t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e e n a c t m e n t .
S t a t e v. C r a i g , s u p r a . W e w i l l presume a s t a t u t e ' s v a l i d i t y ,
u n l e s s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n is " c l e a r and p a l p a b l e ."
N o 1 1 & Kenneady v . Bozeman ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 6 Mont. 5 0 4 , 507, 5 3 4 P.2d 8 8 0 ,
881. S e e a l s o P a r o , s u p r a , 3 6 9 N.E.2d a t 988. W e conclude here
t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t d i d n o t s u s t a i n h i s burden of p r o o f . Our p r e -
v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e Master and o f t h e e v i -
d e n c e p r e s e n t e d to t h e l e g i s l a t u r e c o n v i n c e s us t h a t t h e l e g i s l a -
t u r e r e s p o n d e d to a m e d i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n a r a t i o n a l m a n n e r . We
f i n d t h a t t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s rest on d i s t i n c t i o n s between t h e
g r o u p s o f t o r t p l a i n t i f f s and t o r t d e f e n d a n t s i n v o l v e d w h i c h h a v e
a f a i r and r a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e o b j e c t o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n .
The most p e r s u a s i v e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n a r g u m e n t s h a v e b e e n
c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e l i m i t a t i o n s on recovery--a provision not
i n c l u d e d i n t h e Montana law. The I l l i n o i s c o u r t s t r u c k down a
$ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 l i m i t a t i o n , w h i l e N e b r a s k a u p h e l d t h e same l i m i t a g a i n s t
a s p e c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n and e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c h a l l e n g e , a g a i n
finding a rational basis for t h i s l i m i t . See Wright v. C e n t r a l
Du P a g e H o s p i t a l A s s o c i a t i o n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 6 3 111.2d 313, 3 4 7 N.E.2d
13L
P r e n d e r g a s t , s u p r a , 256 N.W.2d a t 668-69. The o b j e c t i o n to
s u c h a l i m i t a t i o n is t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e most s e r i o u s l y
i n j u r e d p l a i n t i f f s are t h o s e who a r e b e i n g p r e v e n t e d from f u l l
recovery.
No s u c h d i s c r i m i n a t i o n is p r e s e n t i n t h e Montana l a w . All
p l a i n t i f f s may p u r s u e t h e i r r e m e d i e s t o t h e f u l l e s t , c o n d i t i o n a l
o n l y o n s u b m i t t i n g t h e claim t o t h e p a n e l . And, a g a i n , b e c a u s e
t h e p a n e l d e c i s i o n is n o t b i n d i n g n o r e v e n a d m i s s i b l e i n a s u b -
sequent court proceeding, t h e r e is no p o s s i b i l i t y o f a n y
i n f l u e n c e on t h e j u r y . H e a l t h c a r e p r o v i d e r s r e m a i n s u b j e c t to
s u i t , and g a i n no a d v a n t a g e o v e r a n y o t h e r g r o u p o f d e f e n d a n t s .
A j u r y w i l l n e v e r be aware o f a n y d e c i s i o n f o r o r a g a i n s t t h e s e
d e f e n d a n t s by t h e p a n e l . Any d i s c r i m i n a t i o n comes o n l y from t h e
p o s s i b i l i t y o f d i s c o u r a g i n g s u i t , a r e s u l t w h i c h is r e a s o n a b l e i n
l i g h t of the medical s i t u a t i o n . W e f i n d no v i o l a t i o n o f e q u a l
p r o t e c t i o n or t h e p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t s p e c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n .
One a d d i t i o n a l a r g u m e n t a d v a n c e d by p l a i n t i f f is t h a t t h e
P a n e l A c t v i o l a t e s t h e p r o h i b i t i o n s i n t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n
a g a i n s t u n l a w f u l d e l e g a t i o n o f j u d i c i a l and l e g i s l a t i v e power
and i n f r i n g e s on t h e d o c t r i n e o f s e p a r a t i o n o f p o w e r s . 1972
Mont. C o n s t . A r t . 111, § 1, A r t . V, § 1, A r t . V I I , § 1.
P l a i n t i f f c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p a n e l h a s b e e n g i v e n h e a r i n g and
d e c i s i o n a l p o w e r s , b u t t h a t it c a n n o t r e n d e r a j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n
or u t i l i z e p r o t e c t i v e d i s c o v e r y procedures. T h i s , he c o n t e n d s ,
i m p e d e s h i s a c c e s s t o t h e c o u r t s , and c o n s t i t u t e s a n u n l a w f u l
u s u r p a t i o n o f power by non j u d i c i a l b o d i e s . Defendants contend
t h a t t h e p a n e l is a t m o s t a n a d v i s o r y b o d y and e x e r c i s e s no t r u e
judicial functions. Thus t h e r e is no s e p a r a t i o n of powers
p r o b l e m and no u n l a w f u l d e l e g a t i o n o f power.
The Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n demands t h a t t h e t h r e e b r a n c h e s
of g o v e r n m e n t r e m a i n s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t , 1 9 7 2 Mont . Cons t ., A r t .
1 1, 1 , i n o r d e r t o k e e p e a c h b r a n c h a c c o u n t a b l e t o t h e p e o p l e ,
and t o p r e v e n t too much power from b e i n g l o d g e d i n a n y o n e b r a n c h
of g o v e r n m e n t . O I N e i l l v. Yellowstone Irr. D i s t . e t a l . ( 1 9 1 2 ) ,
44 Mont. 492, 5 0 5 , 1 2 1 P. 283, 286. A similar p r o v i s i o n e x i s t s
i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n s o f most s t a t e s , and most s t a t e s c o n s i d e r i n g
t h i s q u e s t i o n have upheld t h e p a n e l acts i n t h e f a c e of t h i s
challenge. E a s t i n , s u p r a , 570 P.2d a t 750; J o h n s o n , s u p r a , 4 0 4
N.E.2d a t 597-598; P r e n d e r g a s t , s u p r a , 256 N.W.2d a t 666-667.
B u t see A r n e s o n , s u p r a , 270 N.W.2d a t 131-132, for a contrary
holding.
By t h e terms o f m o s t p a n e l a c t s , t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e p a n e l
i s a d m i s s i b l e i n c o u r t , b u t it i s n o t b i n d i n g i n a n y way. Thus
many c o u r t s h a v e f o u n d no v i o l a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f s e p a r a t i o n
o f p o w e r s , b e c a u s e t h e a c t i o n s of t h e p a n e l are a t most a d v i s o r y
a n d t h e p a n e l h a s no power t o r e n d e r a n e n f o r c e a b l e d e c i s i o n .
The r e s u l t h a s no more w e i g h t t h a n a n e x p e r t o p i n i o n .
Prendergast, supra; Eastin, supra. The A r i z o n a Supreme C o u r t
noted i n Eastin, supra, t h a t " I [ j l u d i c i a l power is t h e power o f
t h e c o u r t t o d e c i d e and p r o n o u n c e a j u d g m e n t and c a r r y i t i n t o
e f f e c t b e t w e e n p e r s o n s and p a r t i e s who b r i n g a case b e f o r e it f o r
decision. " The Montana C o u r t r e c o g n i z e s t h e same d e f i n i t i o n of
j u d i c i a l p o w e r , and h a s u p h e l d o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o d i e s
a g a i n s t t h i s c h a l l e n g e , w h e r e t h o s e b o d i e s a r e u n a b l e to r e n d e r
e n f o r c e a b l e judgments. S h e a v. N o r t h - B u t t e Min. C o . e t a1 .
( 1 9 1 9 ) , 5 5 Mont. 522, 536-537, 1 7 9 P. 499, 504.
The d e c i s i o n o f t h e Montana p a n e l i s n o t e n f o r c e a b l e , and
u n l i k e t h e p a n e l d e c i s i o n s i n most s t a t e s , it i s n o t e v e n
admissible a t trial . S e c t i o n s 27-6-606, 27-6-704 ( 2 ) , MCA.
C o n s e q u e n t l y , w e f i n d no merit i n p l a i n t i f f ' s a r g u m e n t s . There
a r e no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n s u n d e r t h e Montana A c t .
W e need n o t a d d r e s s t h e r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s r a i s e d by
plaintiff. H e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p a n e l a c t v i o l a t e s 1 9 7 2 Mont.
Const., A r t 11, S $ 7, 8 and 9 , which g i v e t o t h e p u b l i c a r i g h t
t o p a r t i c i p a t e , a r i g h t t o know, and g i v e e v e r y p e r s o n a r i g h t t o
sue for slander o r libel. He additionally alleges t h a t the
l e g i s l a t u r e h a s v i o l a t e d 1 9 7 2 Mont. C o n s t . , A r t V I I I , § § 1 and 2,
w h i c h r e q u i r e t h a t t a x e s s h a l l be l e v i e d by g e n e r a l laws f o r
p u b l i c p u r p o s e s , and w h i c h f o r b i d t h e l e g i s l a t u r e from s u r r e n -
d e r i n g or c o n t r a c t i n g away t h e power t o t a x .
Linder has not appeared before t h e panel. He h a s n o t been
s u b j e c t e d t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f l i b e l or s l a n d e r , and h e may
n e v e r be. T h u s w e f i n d t h a t t h i s q u e s t i o n is n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e
t h i s C o u r t u n d e r t h e f a c t s o f t h i s case. N o r can he assert t h a t
t h e p u b l i c is d e n i e d t h e r i g h t t o p a r t i c i p a t e o r t h e r i g h t t o
know. The Master f o u n d :
" P l a i n t i f f L i n d e r h a s n o t y e t r e q u e s t e d and b e e n
d e n i e d any p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n panel p r o c e e d i n g s or
any r e c o r d s of any proceedings, n o r h a s p l a i n -
t i f f L i n d e r y e t i s s u e d and s e r v e d upon t h e p a n e l
a subpoena f o r such r e c o r d s , n o r h a s p l a i n t i f f
Linder y e t requested t h a t an o f f i c i a l t r a n s c r i p t
b e made o f t h e s w o r n t e s t i m o n y o f a n y w i t n e s s o r
any proceeding before the panel, nor has plain-
t i £ f L i n d e r y e t b e e n harmed o r i n j u r e d by a n y
f a i l u r e o r r e f u s a l o f t h e p a n e l or i t s admi-
n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e r s t o so a c t . " F i n d i n g No. 1 4
H e h a s n o t b e e n a f f e c t e d by t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e s e s t a t u t e s and
t h e r e f o r e h e l a c k s s t a n d i n g to c h a l l e n g e them. Thompson v .
T o b a c c o Root Co-op ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 1 2 1 Mont. 445, 453, 1 9 3 P.2d 8 1 1 , 816.
Additionally, f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s case , L i n d e r is n o t a member
o f t h e excluded p u b l i c . H e is a n e c e s s a r y p a r t i c i p a n t and t h u s
is n o t i n a p o s i t i o n to assert t h i s r i g h t on b e h a l f of t h e
general public.
F i n a l l y , w i t h r e g a r d to p l a i n t i f f ' s a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t
h e a l t h care p r o v i d e r s c a n n o t be t a x e d i n o r d e r t o f u n d t h i s
p a n e l , s e c t i o n 27-6-206, MCA, w e n o t e t h a t p l a i n t i f f is n o t a
h e a l t h care p r o v i d e r . H e is n o t among t h o s e b e i n g t a x e d . The
s t a t u t e i n q u e s t i o n d o e s n o t a p p l y to him and h e i s n o t a f f e c t e d
by it. H e is t h e r e f o r e n o t i n a p o s i t i o n to c h a l l e n g e i t s
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v a l i d i t y on t h i s ground. Chovanak v. M a t t h e w s
( 1 9 4 8 ) , 1 2 0 Mont. 520, 5 2 7 , 1 8 8 P.2d 5 8 2 , 585.
W e h o l d t h e M e d i c a l M a l p r a c t i c e P a n e l A c t t o be
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e of s u b -
s e c t i o n 2, s e c t i o n 27-6-704. A f t e r s e v e r i n g t h a t s e c t i o n from t h e
a c t , w e f i n d t h a t t h e a c t r e m a i n s c o m p l e t e and i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .
Chief J u s t i c e