Appeal No. 299 January Term, 1978, from the Order of the Commonwealth Court at No. 2220 C. D. 1977; Appeal No. 127 March Term, 1978, from the Order of the Commonwealth Court, entered June 26, 1978, at No. 669 C. D. 1978; James S. Bowman, President Judge.
Edward F. Silva, Philadelphia, for appellant in 299.
Edward P. Carey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Herbert L. Olirieri, Harrisburg, for appellee in 299.
Carl Gainor, Snyder & Gainor, P. A., Pittsburgh, for appellant in 127.
Peter J. Curry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Barbara Brown, Harrisburg, for appellee in 127.
Roberts, J., files a dissenting opinion. Eagen, former C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
The Orders of the Commonwealth Court are vacated and the records are remanded for proceedings consistent with Mattos v. Thompson, 491 Pa. 385, 421 A.2d 190 (1980).
ROBERTS, Justice, dissenting.
I adhere to the view, joined by former Chief Justice Eagen, which I expressed in Mattos v. Thompson, 491 Pa. 385, 421 A.2d 190 (1980) (dissenting opinion), that our Legislature's Health Care Services Malpractice Act should not be declared unconstitutional. It is indeed curious that in Mattos, after judicially interring the Legislature's carefully amended arbitration plan and ignoring the Legislature's judgment that the recent amendments to the Act will more promptly resolve malpractice disputes, the majority then proceeds to extol the virtues of arbitration.
It is the stated legislative purpose of this Act to establish a system where one injured by providers of health care services "can obtain a prompt determination and adjudication of his claim . . . ." Act of October 15, 1975, P.L. 390, § 102, 40 P.S. § 1301.102 (Supp.1980). Consistent with this purpose, the recent December 1979 legislative amendments and the more recent February 1980 administrative regulations mandate that malpractice plaintiffs will have their cases heard within fifteen months. The Legislature's goal of a prompt determination of ...