§671-18 Statute of limitations tolled. The
filing of the inquiry with the medical inquiry and conciliation panel or with
an approved or agreed upon alternative dispute resolution provider shall toll
any applicable statute of limitations, and the statute of limitations shall
remain tolled until sixty days after the termination of the panel or the
notification of completion from the approved or agreed upon alternative dispute
resolution provider is mailed or delivered to the parties. If panel
proceedings are not completed within twelve months, or the alternative dispute
resolution process is not completed within twelve months, the statute of
limitations shall resume running and the party filing the inquiry may commence
a suit based on the circumstances related to the inquiry in any appropriate court
of this State. The panel or the approved or agreed upon alternative dispute
resolution provider shall notify all parties in writing of this provision. [L
1976, c 219, pt of §2; am L 1980, c 88, §2; am L 2003, c 211, §4; am L 2012, c
296, pt of §4]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2023 · leading case:
Lee v. Hawaii Pac. Health, 216 P.3d 1258 (Haw. App. 2009).
Lee v. Hawaii Pac. Health, 216 P.3d 1258 (Haw. App. 2009).
· cites it 7× “Lee argues that, notwithstanding the provisions of HRS § 671-18, 7 she had a good faith belief that her claims against HPH could be barred by the statute of limitations if she submitted them first to the MCCP and the MCCP determined that it had no jurisdiction to render a…”
Yamane v. Pohlson, 137 P.3d 980 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 3× “HRS § 671-18 provides that: The filing of the claim with the [MCCP] or with an approved alternative dispute resolution provider shall toll any applicable statute of limitations, and any such statute of limitations shall remain tolled until sixty days after the date the decision…”
Reliance Ins. v. Doctors Co., 299 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (D. Haw. 2004).
“§ 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 after the…”
Jacoby v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., 622 P.2d 613 (Haw. App. 1981).
“This six year time limitation shall be tolled for any period during which the person has failed to disclose any act, error, or omission upon which the action is based and which is known to him.”
Tobosa v. Owens, 741 P.2d 1280 (Haw. 1987).
“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).
“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…”
Doe v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 6 P.3d 362 (Haw. App. 2000).
“[[Image here]] § 671-18 Statute of limitations tolled. The filing of the claim with the [MCCP] shall toll any applicable statute of limitations, and any such statute of limitations shall remain tolled until sixty days after the date the decision of the panel is mailed or…”
Salas v. EMP Med. Grp., Ltd., 524 P.3d 376 (Haw. App. 2023).
· cites it 17× “] 2 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER establish that Salas failed to meet HRS § 671-12(a) (2016) requirements3 to submit an inquiry to the MICP sufficient to trigger the HRS § 671-18 (2016) tolling provision4 with respect to claims against Appellees.”
Krizek v. Queens Med. Ctr., No. 1:18-cv-00293, 2019 WL 3646567 (D. Haw. Aug. 6, 2019).
· cites it 12× “And HRS § 671-18 provides for the tolling of the statute of limitations based on the filing of an MICP inquiry: The filing of the inquiry with the medical inquiry and conciliation panel .”
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.