Bingham v. Gourley
Bingham v. Gourley, 2024 UT 38 (Pohlman, J.)
Constitutional
In 2020, Bingham brought a claim for negligence against doctors that performed a surgery on her in 2010. Bingham also sought a declaration that the Malpractice Act’s four-year statute of repose is unconstitutional. The district court ruled that the statute of repose met constitutional muster and dismissed Bingham’s claim with prejudice. Bingham appealed under numerous sections of the Utah Constitution and federal Constitution. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding:
- The district court correctly dismissed Bingham’s claim. Bingham did not show that the Act’s four-year statute of repose was unconstitutional under Utah’s Open Courts Clause, Utah’s Uniform Operations of Laws provision, or the federal Constitution’s Equal protection Clause.
- Practice tip: Utah’s articulation of the uniform operation test to legislation implicating open courts rights has not expressly assigned a burden of persuasion.