Column defending the indefensible MICRA left out an important point

The lengthy defense of the indefensible MICRA in the March 27 Daily Journal ("MICRA 'cap' comports with right to a jury trial") omits one salient point: In the first case upholding MICRA, American Bank & Trust Co. v. Community Hospital, 36 Cal. 3d 359, 372 n.11 (1984), the California Supreme Court quoted the preamble to MICRA as follows:

"The Legislature finds and declares that there is a major health crisis in the state of California attributable to skyrocketing malpractice premium costs ... The Legislature ... finds the statutory remedy herein provided is intended to provide an adequate and reasonable remedy now and into the foreseeable future." (Emphasis added.)

"Foreseeable future" was not defined, but hardly could have meant a half century distant!

MICRA will come to an end, sooner or later. The case will be bound by the brilliant opinion of the chief justice of the United States, some six years ago in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) when he wrote, for the majority, "The act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs." (Emphasis added.)

Two years ago, in Matthews v. Harris, 7 Cal. App. 5th 334 (2017), it was said "we are ... bound to accept the decision of the United States Supreme Court." Then, in what might be characterized as "the smoking gun," the U.S. Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, reversed the California Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), wherein Justice Samuel Alito wrote: "Our [i.e., U.S. Supreme Court] settled principles controls this case."

Even though Bristol-Myers was written in terms of "due process," it is clear the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution was the true rationale for the decision.