Docket Number

860230

Document Type

Legal Brief

Publication Date

1986

Abstract

Pursuant to Rule 24 (j) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, respondents Veasy, Bowman and the hospital entities hereby advise the Court of a decision which has recently come to counsels' attention. The argument beginning on page 22 of the Respondents1 Brief, "IV. Section 78-14-4 is a Constitutionally Permissible Enactment", should be supplemented with the following citation: Douglas v. Hugh A. Stallings, M.D., Inc., 87 0 F.2d 1242 (7th Cir. 1989) (limits imposed on a brain damaged minor by the malpractice statute of limitations are rationally related to the goals of preventing stale claims and controlling the cost of medical care; the state need not provide a tolling provision for minority and mental incompetents or a discovery rule in order to comply with due process guarantees).

Comments

Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Supreme Court; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors.
Kirton, McConkie, and Poelman.
unknown.

Rights

Public record document (some rights may be reserved).

COinS