Can Utah's medical malpractice statute of repose survive constitutional challenges? Bingham v. Gourley Explained

The Utah Supreme Court in Bingham v. Gourley addressed a significant challenge to the state’s medical malpractice statute of repose, ultimately affirming its constitutionality under multiple constitutional theories. This decision provides important guidance for practitioners handling both medical malpractice cases and constitutional challenges to statutes of limitation.

Background and Facts

Tiffany Bingham underwent surgery in July 2010 with Dr. George Gourley, followed by a second surgery eight days later with Dr. McKay Platt assisting. Bingham continued experiencing health problems for years until corrective surgery in November 2017 revealed damage from the 2010 procedures, ultimately requiring kidney removal. She sued the doctors in August 2020, more than ten years after the alleged malpractice, challenging the constitutionality of Utah Code § 78B-3-404(1)’s four-year statute of repose.

Key Legal Issues

Bingham argued the statute violated three constitutional provisions: Utah’s Open Courts Clause, the Uniform Operation of Laws Provision, and the federal Equal Protection Clause. She contended the statute arbitrarily denied remedies to patients whose injuries remained undetectable within the four-year period, while creating an exception for foreign objects left in patients’ bodies.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Applying the Berry test for Open Courts Clause challenges, the court found the legislature had identified a clear social or economic evil—rising medical malpractice insurance costs threatening healthcare availability—and chose reasonable means to address it. The court emphasized the deferential “fairly debatable” standard from Judd v. Drezga, noting that even if the legislature’s empirical conclusions were disputed, courts cannot substitute their policy judgments for the legislature’s. The statute of repose helped insurers calculate premiums by eliminating the “long-tail” uncertainty of claims filed years after alleged malpractice.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces the high burden for constitutional challenges to statutes of repose. Practitioners should note that simply demonstrating a statute bars potentially valid claims is insufficient—they must show the legislative response to identified problems was not “fairly debatable” or that the means chosen were arbitrary. The court’s deference to legislative fact-finding makes empirical challenges particularly difficult under current precedent.