HomeMy WebLinkAbout0079 b) Admission of the conclusion of the Medical
Mediation Panel in a subsequent trial is unconstitutional and that
it violates .the rights of the parties to have a trial free of
potentially prejudicial evidence and, in ef~ect, changes the tradi-
tinal burden of proof,
c) Admission of the conclusion of the Medical
!lediation Panel in a subsequent trial permits an opinion to be
submitted on the ultimate issue based upon evidence inadmissible
in a court of law which is an unconstitutional infringement on the
right to trial by jury.
c) Failure to permit questioning of the panelists
on the ~4edical Mediation Panel in a subsequent trial concerning a
specific finding is an unconstitutional violation of due process.
e) Admission of the conclusion of_the '~edicai
?'•lediation Panel in a subsequent trial permits an extra-judicial
determination to improperly influence a jury trial,
f) The law as espoused in Carter v, Sparkman is
wrong .
j g) The Act is unconstitutional because either the
judicial referee is performing a nonjudicial function or the lawyer
and physician member of the Panel are performing judicial functions.
h) The !?tedical ?Kediation requirement violates the
constitutional provisions guarantying access to the courts and
administration of justice without delay.
i) There is open and obvious discrimination against '
claimants suing defendants.
IT IS HEREBY specifically held that the Plaintiffs
hereir. have complied with the provisions of the ?4dical 'lediation
Act or Statute in all respects.
9. Discovery, necessary motions anc? hearings and litiga-
tion in this matter shall proceed henceforth without delay and
i
towards trial.
DONE and ORDE'2ED this ~c'.av of Febr ry, 19630
F,
LIP G. URSE, CI JUDGE
g~3~6 P~ ~