STAND. COM. REP. 479
Honolulu, Hawaii
, 2003
RE: H.B. No. 1171
H.D. 1
Honorable Calvin K.Y. Say
Speaker, House of Representatives
Twenty-Second State Legislature
Regular Session of 2003
State of Hawaii
Sir:
Your Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, to which was referred H.B. No. 1171 entitled:
"A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO CONCILIATION PANELS,"
begs leave to report as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to improve the Medical Claim Conciliation Panel (MCCP) process in which medical tort claims are reviewed by MCCP before they may be pursued through the judicial system. Specifically, this bill:
(1) Attempts to give the claimant or claimant's attorney (claimant) a clearer understanding of a claim's issues and merits, by:
(A) Requiring the claimant to make three good faith attempts to consult a licensed physician in the same medical specialty as the physician against whom the claim is made, regarding the merits of the claim; and
(B) Mandating that claims filed with MCCP be accompanied by the claimant's certification that based on the consultation, the claimant believes there is reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of the claim; and
(C) Giving claimants, who did not have enough time to file a certification with the claim because of the statute of limitations, 30 days from the date of filing to obtain a consultation and submit the certification;
(2) Gives the parties the option of agreeing to submit the claim to an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provider certified by the Hawaii Supreme Court, rather than to MCCP; and
(3) Reduces the processing time for MCCP and ADR claims by requiring that MCCP and ADR proceedings be completed in 12 months instead of 18 months.
Testimony in support of this bill was submitted by the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs(DCCA). Consumer Lawyers of Hawaii submitted testimony in opposition to this bill.
Your Committee finds that the improvements proposed by this bill have merit. However DCCA and the Consumer Lawyers of Hawaii have not been able to resolve all of their differences on the bill, and more time is also needed to resolve related issues. Your Committee has amended this bill accordingly, as well as to provide greater claimant protection, particularly to pro-se claimants. Among other things, the amendments:
(1) Allow a claimant to consult with any licensed physician when the claimant is unable to consult with a physician in the same medical specialty as the health care professional against whom the claim has been made;
(2) Delete the requirement that the three attempts to consult with a physician be made in "good faith." Your Committee believes that more discussion is necessary to narrow and define this guideline;
(3) In instances where the claimant is unable to obtain the consultation before the statute of limitations would impair the action, extend from 30 to 90 days from the date of filing of the claim, the time given the claimant to obtain a consultation and file a certification;
(4) Provide that the Director of DCCA shall approve the ADR provider selected by the parties, rather than the Supreme Court of Hawaii, which expressed unwillingness to perform the certification; and
(5) Change the effective date of the bill to July 1, 2050, to allow further discussion and resolution of these issues.
Technical, nonsubstantive amendments have also been made for purposes of clarity and style.
As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of H.B. No. 1171, as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Second Reading in the form attached hereto as H.B. No. 1171, H.D. 1, and be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of the Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce,
|
____________________________ KENNETH T. HIRAKI, Chair |
||