MINNEAPOLIS, November 2, 2007 - The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Podiatric Medical Association (APMA) want to join the MMA’s efforts to weigh in on a court case that raises the legal question of whether an “agreement for corrective action” may be used as evidence against a licensed health care professional in a malpractice lawsuit.

On October 17th, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted a petition by the MMA and the Minnesota Podiatric Medical Association’s (MPMA) to submit an amicus brief in the case O’Rourke versus Buckmaster.

Since then, the AMA and the APMA have asked the court to allow them to join the MMA / MPMA amicus brief.   The deadline for the initial filing has passed.  Therefore it is up to the discretion of the court whether the national organizations will be allowed to join. 

“It would be very beneficial to have the  AMA and APMA named on our amicus brief, ,” said MMA attorney, Karolyn Stirewalt.   "It would help to highlight the importance of this case to the court."

The AMA and the APMA are interested in the case because some other licensing boards in the U.S. use corrective action agreements (or other types of agreements that function in the same way) to resolve complaints brought against licensed health professionals.  The court's decision in this case has the potential to influence the development of the law in other states with similar complaint processes.

In filing the brief, the organizations hope to inform the court about the practical and legal consequences that this decision will have on physicians beyond what is apparent from the party-specific issues raised in a case.

In O’Rourke versus Buckmaster, patient Sandra O’Rourke filed a complaint pertaining to her care against Roy Wayne Buckmaster, D.P.M., with the Minnesota Board of Podiatric Medicine.
The Board sent the complaint to the Attorney General for investigation. Following the investigation, the Board’s complaint review committee and Buckmaster entered into a nondisciplinary agreement for corrective action.

Later, Sandra O’Rourke brought a medical negligence lawsuit against Buckmaster, in which the judge allowed the agreement for corrective action to be used as evidence against the podiatrist.

Buckmaster is appealing that decision. The question for the Minnesota Court of Appeals is whether an agreement for corrective action is considered a “settlement” or a “compromise negotiation,” both of which would mean the evidence must be excluded under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence and supporting case law.

The court’s decision on this issue will conceivably affect all licensed health care professionals in Minnesota who are involved in the complaint process under Minnesota Statute Chapter 214 and are considering entering into an agreement for corrective action rather than pursuing a full, contested case hearing.