Com. v. Neff, J.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Section 41-5-13 was a benefit of the Act and that it did not apply to non-qualified health care providers
• holding that where there are no explicit instructions as to when a cause of action accrues, a judicial determination as to the date of accrual must be made
• concluding that the “time of the negligent act rule” no longer retains its vitality
• concluding that the Legislature intended to insulate a “health care provider” under the Act from the much greater liability exposure that flows from the discovery-based accrual date which applies to medical providers not covered by the Act
• stating that each portion of a statute to be given effect unless a different intent is clearly expressed
• stating that each portion of a statute to be given effect unless a different intent is clearly expressed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).