§671-16 Subsequent litigation; excluded
evidence. [(a)] The party initiating the inquiry may institute litigation
based upon the circumstances of the inquiry in an appropriate court only after
the medical inquiry and conciliation panel proceedings were terminated pursuant
to section 671-15; a party has participated in alternative dispute resolution
pursuant to section 671-16.6; or the twelve-month period under section 671-18
has expired.
[(b)] No statement made in the course of the
proceedings of the medical inquiry and conciliation panel shall be admissible
in evidence either as an admission, to impeach the credibility of a witness, or
for any other purpose in any trial of the action; provided that the statements
may be admissible for the purpose of section 671-19. No decision, conclusion,
finding, statement, or recommendation of the medical inquiry and conciliation
panel on the issue of liability or on the issue of damages shall be admitted
into evidence in any subsequent trial, nor shall any party to the medical
inquiry and conciliation panel proceeding, or the counsel or other
representative of a party, refer or comment thereon in an opening statement, an
argument, or at any other time, to the court or jury; provided that the
decision, conclusion, finding, or recommendation may be admissible for the
purpose of section 671-19. [L 1976, c 219, pt of §2; am L 1980, c 88, §3; am L
2003, c 211, §3 ; am L 2012, c 296, pt of §4]
Case Notes
Claim was allowed to be heard because there was substantial
compliance with procedural requirements. 69 H. 305, 741 P.2d 1280 (1987).
Where certain counts of plaintiff's complaint alleged errors
or omissions in professional practice by a health care provider, thus falling
under the definition of "medical tort" under §671-1(2), court
properly ruled plaintiff could not proceed with those counts of suit without
first submitting them to medical claim conciliation panel as required by
§671-12 and this section. 89 H. 188, 970 P.2d 496 (1998).
Where plaintiff chose to sidestep requirements of §671-12 and
this section by filing suit before seeking resolution of claims by a medical
claim conciliation panel as required under these statutes, court properly
dismissed complaint. 89 H. 188, 970 P.2d 496 (1998).
Plaintiff's claims of neglect, abuse, and failure to provide
a safe home against care home defendants did not constitute "medical torts"
within the meaning of §671-1; thus, plaintiff was not required to submit
plaintiff's claims to a medical claim conciliation panel (MCCP) pursuant to
§671-12 and this section as a condition for plaintiff to file suit against
defendants, and the circuit court erred in dismissing plaintiff's suit based on
plaintiff's failure to submit plaintiff's claims to a MCCP. 128 H. 405 (App.),
289 P.3d 1041 (2012).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2023 · leading case:
Troyer v. Adams, 77 P.3d 83 (Haw. 2003).
Troyer v. Adams, 77 P.3d 83 (Haw. 2003).
· cites it 4× “Adams also contended that Troyer violated HRS § 671-16 (1993) by submitting the MCCP decision as an exhibit attached to her reply memorandum.”
Yamane v. Pohlson, 137 P.3d 980 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 5× “On March 8, 2001, the plaintiffs filed their rejection of the MCCP’s advisory opinion pursuant to HRS § 671-16. 3. The Cii cuit Court Proceedings On March 22, 2001, the plaintiffs commenced the instant action in the circuit court.”
Est. of Frey v. Mastroianni., 463 P.3d 1197 (Haw. 2020).
· cites it 4× “Whether the bar from subsequent litigation, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 671-16 , is to be construed to preclude litigation on any theories of liability that are not explicitly and meticulously pled by a Plaintiff in its MCCP statement.”
Craft v. Peebles, 893 P.2d 138 (Haw. 1995).
· cites it 2× “On July 7,1987, after her case was heard and decided by the MCCP, 5 Craft filed a complaint in the present case in the Third Circuit Court pursuant to HRS § 671-16. In September 1991, during a biopsy, Dr.”
Lee v. Hawaii Pac. Health, 216 P.3d 1258 (Haw. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “HRS § 671-16 (Supp.2003) (footnote and emphasis added).”
Tobosa v. Owens, 741 P.2d 1280 (Haw. 1987).
· cites it 3× “7 HRS § 671-16, in relevant part, provides: The claimant may institute litigation based upon the claim in an appropriate court only after a party to a medical claim conciliation panel hearing rejects the decision of the panel, or after the eighteen-month period under section…”
Dubin v. Wakuzawa, 970 P.2d 496 (Haw. 1999).
· cites it 3× “HRS § 671-16 provides in relevant part that "[t]he [medical tort] claimant may institute litigation based upon the claim in an appropriate court only after a party to a medical claim con-dilation panel hearing rejects the decision of the panel, or after the eighteen-month period…”
Reliance Ins. v. Doctors Co., 299 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (D. Haw. 2004).
· cites it 2× “” Haw.Rev.Stat. § 671-16, “Subsequent litigation; excluded evidence,” provides, in part, “The claimant may institute litigation based upon the claim in an appropriate court only after a party to a medical claim conciliation panel hearing rejects the decision of the panel, or…”
Hum v. Dericks, 162 F.R.D. 628 (D. Haw. 1995).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 671-16. The court finds that the MCCP procedure in Hawaii has very little effect, if any, on the outcome of a subsequent lawsuit.”
Garcia v. Kaiser Found. Hospitals, 978 P.2d 863 (Haw. 1999).
· cites it 2× “) In addition, HRS § 671-16 (1993) provides in relevant part that “[t]he claimant may institute litigation based upon the claim in an appropriate court only after a party to a medical claim conciliation panel [MCCP] hearing rejects the decision of the panel[.”
Campos v. Marrhey Care Home, LLC, 289 P.3d 1041 (Haw. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “” Under HRS § 671-16, “[t]he claimant may institute litigation based upon the claim in an appropriate court only after a party to a medical claim conciliation panel hearing rejects the decision of the panel,” or after a period of twelve-months from the filing of the claim has…”
Doe v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 6 P.3d 362 (Haw. App. 2000).
“[[Image here]] § 671-16 Subsequent litigation;.... The claimant may institute litigation based upon the claim in an appropriate court only after a party to a [MCCP] hearing rejects the decision of the panel,.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 671-16(a) — 1 case
Est. of Frey v. Mastroianni., 463 P.3d 1197 (Haw. 2020).
“Whether the bar from subsequent litigation, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 671-16 , is to be construed to preclude litigation on any theories of liability that are not explicitly and meticulously pled by a Plaintiff in its MCCP statement.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.