Strahler v. St. Luke's Hospital
706 S.W.2d 7, 1986 Mo. LEXIS 248, 62 A.L.R. 4th 735 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute of limitations that requires minors, who lack the legal capacity to bring a lawsuit in their own right, to file a medical malpractice claim within two years violates the 'open courts' provision of the Missouri Constitution because it works a forfeiture of their claim without providing a reasonable alternative.
Facts:
- When Carol A. Strahler was fifteen years old, she received medical treatment from Dr. Sandow.
- As an alleged result of this treatment, Strahler suffered the complete amputation of her right leg above the knee.
- Under Missouri law at the time, minors lacked the legal capacity to initiate a civil lawsuit in their own right and were required to sue through a guardian or 'next friend'.
- Strahler did not file a lawsuit within two years of the alleged malpractice.
- At age nineteen, four years after the alleged malpractice, Strahler filed a lawsuit against Dr. Sandow for negligent medical treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- Carol A. Strahler filed a petition for damages against Dr. Sandow and other defendants in the Circuit Court of Jackson County.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice.
- The trial court granted the motion and dismissed Strahler's action against Dr. Sandow.
- Strahler appealed the dismissal to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
- Prior to an opinion from the appellate court, the Supreme Court of Missouri ordered the case transferred to itself for review of the constitutional issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Missouri's medical malpractice statute of limitations, § 516.105, which requires minors over the age of ten to file suit within two years of the alleged malpractice, violate the 'open courts' provision of the Missouri Constitution, Article I, Section 14, by effectively barring the claims of minors who lack the legal capacity to sue on their own behalf?
Opinions:
Majority - Billings, J.
Yes, the statute violates the Missouri Constitution's 'open courts' provision. The statute is unconstitutional as applied to minors because it imposes too severe an interference with a minor's state constitutionally enumerated right of access to the courts. The Missouri Constitution's 'open courts' provision (Art. I, § 14) is an express guarantee that gives constitutional protection to a litigant’s right of access to the court system. Because minors in Missouri lack the legal capacity to sue in their own right, § 516.105 makes their ability to seek redress dependent on the diligence of parents or guardians. The court found it is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a minor whose parents fail to act to independently seek out another adult to serve as a next friend. While the legislative purpose of alleviating a perceived medical malpractice crisis is legitimate, the method chosen unfairly penalizes blameless minors and works a forfeiture of their common law claims without providing any adequate substitute.
Concurring - Robertson, J.
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional. This decision is the 'natural born, legitimate offspring' of the Court's precedent in State ex rel. Cardinal Glennon Memorial Hospital v. Gaertner, which also struck down a medical malpractice statute based on the 'open courts' provision. The majority opinion rests on the narrow ground of access to the courts and does not implicate broader due process or equal protection guarantees. Adherence to precedent requires concurring in the result.
Dissenting - Blackmar, J.
No, the statute does not violate the constitution. The legislature is entitled to make the reasonable assumptions that parents or guardians can be depended upon to protect children's legal rights and that a child aged ten or older can communicate their physical problems. The legislature may legitimately balance the hardship to defendants from defending stale claims against the possibility that some plaintiffs may lose valid claims. The fact that a statute of limitations may operate harshly in some cases does not render it unconstitutional.
Dissenting - Donnelly, J.
No, the statute is constitutional. The central issue is whether the statute is an impermissible 'special law' under the Missouri Constitution by creating a classification between different types of minors. The General Assembly's classification has a 'rational justification' and is therefore constitutional.
Dissenting - Welliver, J.
No, the statute is constitutional. The majority opinion is judicial activism that improperly substitutes its own views for the legislature's. The 'open courts' provision is essentially a due process clause, and a statute of limitations only violates it if the time allowed is 'clearly and plainly unreasonable.' It is not unreasonable for the legislature to expect parents or guardians to protect a minor's interests to address the crisis of escalating medical costs. The statute also satisfies equal protection because its classification is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of controlling malpractice insurance costs.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that Missouri's constitutional 'open courts' provision provides robust protection for legally disabled individuals, such as minors. It prioritizes a minor's fundamental right to seek a legal remedy over the state's generalized interest in limiting liability in the medical malpractice field. The ruling sets a precedent that a statute cannot extinguish a cause of action for a class of plaintiffs who legally depend on others to act on their behalf before they gain the capacity to sue for themselves. This case demonstrates how state constitutions can be interpreted to provide greater protection for individual rights than the federal Constitution, and it constrains legislative power to enact tort reform measures that unduly burden access to the justice system.
Unlock the full brief for Strahler v. St. Luke's Hospital