{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f171\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f172\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}
{\f174\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f175\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f176\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f177\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}
{\f178\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f179\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;
\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;
\red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{\*\cs16 \additive 
\ul\cf2 Hypertext;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid10172004 header;}{\s18\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext18 \styrsid10172004 footer;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid3721\rsid9262139\rsid9508377\rsid10172004\rsid14767317}
{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min5}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy10\hr9\min31}{\version4}{\edmins3}{\nofpages11}{\nofwords5018}{\nofchars28606}
{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws33557}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb360 
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3
\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot14767317 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14767317 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14767317 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14767317 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14767317 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid14767317\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 Villagomez-Palisson v. Superior Court}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 , Opinion\tab \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid14767317 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {
\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid3721 11}}}{\fs20\insrsid14767317  of 16
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid14767317 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-14\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid3721 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom14\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}
{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize14\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\insrsid14767317 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid14767317 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid3721 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\insrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 ROSIE VILLAGOMEZ-PALISSON AND
\par MARIANAS PHYSICIANS GROUP,
\par }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Petitioners,
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 v.}{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 SUPERIOR COURT,}{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Respondent.}{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 CARMEN ARCEO LAGUANA AND ROMY PETER LAGUANA,}{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Real Parties in Interest.}{\insrsid3721 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\insrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 OPINION}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Filed: July 20, 2004}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid3721  }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 2004 Guam 13}{\insrsid3721 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\insrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Supreme Court Case No.: WRP03-004
\par Superior Court Case No.: CV0557-02}{\insrsid3721 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Original Proceeding in the Supreme Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on January 28, 2004
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trgaph127\trleft24\trftsWidth1\trpaddl127\trpaddr127\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4704\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9384\pard 
\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid3721 {\ul\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Appearing for Petitioner Marianas}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  
\par }{\ul\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Physicians Group:}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par Michael F. Phillips, }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Esq}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .
\par Phillips & Bordallo, P.C.
\par 410 West O}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Brien Dr.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }{\ul\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Appearing for Real Parties in Interest Carmen Arceo Laguana and Romy Peter Laguana:}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par Frederick J. Kerley, }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Esq}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .
\par Attorney-at-Law
\par Ste. 907, Pacific News Bldg.
\par 238 Archbishop F.C. Flores St.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trgaph127\trleft24\trftsWidth1\trpaddl127\trpaddr127\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt
\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4704\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr
\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9384\row }\trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow \ts11\trgaph127\trleft24\trftsWidth1\trpaddl127\trpaddr127\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl
\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4704\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9384\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid3721 {\ul\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Appearing for Petitioner
\par Rosie Villagomez-Palisson:
\par }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Gary D. Hull
\par Gary D. Hull, P.C.
\par Ste. 903, Pacific News Bldg.
\par 238 Archbishop Flores St.}{\ul\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow 
\ts11\trgaph127\trleft24\trftsWidth1\trpaddl127\trpaddr127\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4704\clvertalt
\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9384\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\insrsid3721 
\par }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 BEFORE: FRANCES TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Chief Justice (Acting)}{\cs15\super\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\sl-229\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid14767317 \chftn }{\insrsid14767317  }{\fs20\insrsid14767317 
Chief Justice F. Philip Carbullido recused himself from this matter.  As next senior member of the panel, Associate Justice Frances Tydingco-Gatewood serves as Acting Chief Justice in this matter.}{\insrsid14767317  }}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
; JANET HEALY WEEKS, Justice }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 ; RICHARD H. BENSON, Justice }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .}{\insrsid3721 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 WEEKS, J.:}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [1]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab In this matter, the Petitioners Rosie Villagomez-Palisson and the Marianas Physician Group (collectively }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 MPG}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
) challenge the Superior Court}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s decision declaring the Medical Malpractice Mandatory Arbitration Act (}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Arbitration Act}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  or }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Act}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 ), 10 GCA }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  10100 }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 et seq}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 ., inorganic as violating the separation of powers doctrine.
}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 MPG argues that the Act is valid, and further argues that under the Act, claims for medical malpractice must be submitted to arbitration before a claimant may commence a court action.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 MPG contends that because the Real Parties in Interest Carmen and Romy Laguana (}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Laguanas}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
) did not proceed through arbitration as required under the Arbitration Act, the lower court is exceeding its jurisdiction in entertaining the Laguanas}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  action for medical malpractice.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 We hold that the Arbitration Act does not offend the separation of powers doctrine embodied in the Organic Act.}{
\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 We order that a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the Superior Court to vacate its decision declaring the Act inorganic on that ground.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
The Laguanas also argue in this matter that the Arbitration Act is inorganic in that it violates their rights to a jury trial and free access to the courts, as well as their due process and equal protection rights.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 We decline to rule on these matters in the first instance, and direct the Superior Court to address these issues in the underlying proceeding.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 I.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [2]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab On April 16, 2002, the Laguanas filed a complaint for medical malpractice in the Superior Court of Guam against MPG.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
MPG filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under Guam Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), respectively.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
MPG requested, in the alternative, for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Petition, Exhibit B, p. 2 (Decision and Order, April 4, 2003).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
In the motion, MPG argued that the lower court lacked jurisdiction over the case because under the Arbitration Act, the Laguanas were required to proceed through arbitration prior to bringing a court action.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 See}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  Petition, Exhibit B, p. 2 (Decision and Order, April 4, 2003).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 In a Decision and Order f
iled on April 4, 2003, the lower court denied the motion to dismiss after holding that the Arbitration Act was inorganic because it violated the separation of powers doctrine.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
Petition, Exhibit B, pp. 30-31 (Decision and Order, April 4, 2003).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 MPG filed 
a motion for reconsideration of the April 4, 2003 Decision and Order, which the trial court denied in a Decision and Order filed on May 16, 2003.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [3]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab MPG filed the instant Petition for Writ of Prohibition in this court on June 11, 2003.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 MPG seeks a pere
mptory writ ordering the lower court to cease and desist from continuing proceedings against them and to dismiss the underlying case and any derivative arbitration proceedings with prejudice.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
Petition, pp. 6-7.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 In the Petition, MPG argues that the Arbitration Act is valid and that under the Act, the Laguanas are required to first submit its malpractice claim for arbitration.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 MPG further argues that because the Laguanas}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
 claim exceeded the statutory limitations period for bringing the claim in arbitration, the Laguanas are barred by law from pursuing their malpractice claim altogether.
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [4]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab On September 4, 2003, this court issued an Alternative Writ of Prohibition, directing the Respondent Superior Court to tempor
arily cease and desist from conducting further proceedings in this matter.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
We then heard arguments and, for the reasons set forth below, now order that the Superior Court vacate its decision declaring the Arbitration Act inorganic.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 II.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [5]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab We have original jurisdiction over a petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus under Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  3107(b) (1994).}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 See also People v. Laxamana}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 2001 Guam 26, }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  5.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 III.}{\b\insrsid14767317 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid3721\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-360\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 A.\tab Standard of Review and the Lower Court}{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s Decision.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [6]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab MPG specifically requests a writ of prohibition to prohibit the Superior Court from conducting further proceedings in the underlying matter.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 A writ of prohibition }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, or person exercising judicial functions, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board, or person.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  31301 (1998).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 MPG also requests that this court issue a writ directing the Superior Court to dismiss the underlyin
g proceedings and any derivative arbitration proceedings.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 By requesting that we compel the lower court to perform an affirmative act, this request implicates the remedy of mandamus.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 See}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  31202 (1998); }{
\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 see also State ex rel. Beirne v. Smith}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 591 S.E.2d 329, 332 (W. Va. 2003) (characterizing the request as one for mandamus because the petitioners sought to compel an affirmative act).}{
\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 A writ of mandamus }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 may
 be issued by any court, [except a commissioner}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
s court or police court,] to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty res
ulting from an office, trust, or station; or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled, and from which he is unlawfully precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person.}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 7 GCA }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  31202 (brackets in original).}{\cs15\super\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid14767317 \chftn }{\insrsid14767317  }{\fs20\insrsid14767317 
Although MPG filed a petition for writ of prohibition, we have the discretion to treat it as one seeking a writ of mandamus.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 See State ex rel. Sandy v. Johnson}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 , 571 S.E.2d 333, 336 n.1 (W. Va. 2002) (}{
\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 
Although this case was brought and granted as a petition for a writ of prohibition, we choose to treat it as a writ of mandamus action.}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid14767317 );}{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317  Kinder v. State}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 , 779 So. 2d 512, 514 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid14767317 We treat the petition for writ of prohibition as a petition for writ of mandamus . . . .}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 ); }{
\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 see also}{\fs20\insrsid14767317   }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 State ex rel. Stewart v. Civil Service Comm}{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 n of City of St. Louis}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 , 120 S.W.3d 279, 285 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) (}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 As a gener
al matter, a court has the discretion to treat a petition for a writ of mandamus as one for a writ of prohibition.}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 ); }{
\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 State ex rel. Riley v. Rudloff}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 , 575 S.E.2d 377, 381-82 (W. Va. 2002) (treating a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and, or mandamus as a petition for writ of prohibition).}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [7]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab MPG alleges that the Respondent Superior Court has no jurisdiction over the underlying proceeding because the Laguanas were required, under the Arbitration Act, to submit
 their claim to arbitration prior to bringing a court action.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 MPG argues that the Respondent erred in finding that the Arbitration Act was invalid under the Organic Act.
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [8]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab Title 10 GCA }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  10102 g
overns medical malpractice claims, and provides:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\insrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3721 {\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Mandatory arbitration.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
Any claim that accrues or is being pursued in the territory of Guam, whether in tort, contract, or otherwise, shall be submitted to mandatory arbitration pursuant to the terms of this
 Chapter if it is a controversy between the patient, his relatives, his heirs-at-law or personal representative or any third party or other party, and the health professional or health care institution, or their employees or agents, and is based on malpra
c
tice, tort, contract, strict liability, or any other alleged violation of a legal duty incident to the acts of the health professional or health care institution, or incident to services rendered or to be rendered by the health professional or health care
 institution.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par Title 10 GCA }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  10102 (1994).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
Thus, under the Act, malpractice claimants are required to submit their claims to mandatory arbitration.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [9]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab If the Act survives Organic Act scrutiny, then pursuant to Title 10 GCA }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  10102, the Laguanas would be required to first submit their claim to arbitration prior to bringing a court action.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The lower court}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s decision that the
 Laguanas were not barred from asserting their medical malpractice claim in court without having to first submit to arbitration was grounded on its invalidation of the Arbitration Act.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [10]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab Essentially, we are called upon to review the lower court}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s decision regarding the organicity of the Arbitration Act.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
The Organic Act serves the function of a constitution for Guam.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Haeuser v. Dep}{
\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 t of Law}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 97 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir.1996); }{
\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 see also People v. Perez}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 1999 Guam 2, }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
 15 (}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Until Guam creates its own Constitution, the Organic Act of Guam is the equivalent of Guam}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s Constitution.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 ).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Thus, whether a law or statute violates the Organic Act is a question of law.}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 See Perez}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 1999 Guam 2 at }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  6 (}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law reviewed }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 de novo}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 ).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 A determin
ation of constitutionality must be made against the backdrop of the }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
general rule that legislative enactments are presumed to be constitutional.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
In re Request of Governor Carl T. C. Gutierrez}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 2002 Guam 1, }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  41.}{
\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
[H]e who alleges the unconstitutionality of an act bears the burden of proof . . . and the validity of acts is to be uph
eld if at all possible with all doubt resolved in favor of legality and unconstitutionality will be decreed only when no other reasonable alternative presents itself.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 . (brackets omitted).
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [11]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab The lower court held that the Arbitration Act was void and therefore incapable of application because it violated the separation of powers doctrine.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Specifically, the court identified two different aspects of the Act which violated the separation of powers doctrine.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
First, the court found that the Act prevents courts from performing their constitutional function of interpreting and applying the law in deciding the appropriate remedies in malpractice cases.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
On this point, the lower court emphasized that 
under the Act, courts are prevented from adjudicating legitimate malpractice claims because many litigants will lack the ability to first submit to arbitration due to the high initial costs of initiating arbitration.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Second, the court found that the Act }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
impermissibly delegates judicial power to an entity other than the court to make a final and unreviewable adjudication of the parties[}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 ] rights.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Petitioner}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s Excerpts of Record, p. 30 (Decision and Order, p. 24, April 4, 2003).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
With regard to this latter finding, the lower court relied on the fact that under the Arbitration Act, the arbitration panels consisted of non-judicial officers who were authorized to make judicial determinations.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Further, the lower court found that unlike a quasi-judicial administrative body (such as the Civil Service Commission), whose decisions must be su
bject to judicial review to pass constitutional muster, there is no mechanism in the Arbitration Act which would permit meaningful review of the arbitrators}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
 decisions. According to the lower court, the lack of meaningful review is evident because under the Act, a court is only permitted to review a decision in the limited cases where corruption or clerical errors are alleged.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Further, the lower court found that the Act}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s provisions permitting a trial }{
\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 de novo }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 do not permit meaningful review in light of the rigid fee-shifting provisions, in which the award of attorney}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s fees and costs is based on the unreviewable decision made by the arbitrators.}{\cs15\super\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid14767317 \chftn }{\insrsid14767317  }{\fs20\insrsid14767317 
Under the Act, a prevailing party is entitled to costs and attorney}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 
s fees incurred at trial.  An appellant is the prevailing party if he increases (or in the case of an appealing doctor, decreases) the arbitrators}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}
{\fs20\insrsid14767317  award by 40% or more.  If the award is not so increased or decreased, the other party is the prevailing party.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 See }{\fs20\insrsid14767317 Title 10 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14767317  10142, 10143 (1994).}{\insrsid14767317  }}}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [12]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab Finally, the lower court found that the Arbitration Act}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s severability provision could not be given effect because the remaining valid provisions of the Act could not be given effect without the severed portions.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
Accordingly, the lower court held that the Act was invalid and unenforceable.}{\insrsid3721 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [13]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab In this proceeding the Laguanas contend that the lower court was correct in finding the Arbitration Act to be invalid as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.}{
\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The Laguanas argue additionally that the Act violates the right of access to the courts, the right to a jury trial, and the equal protection and due process clauses.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The Laguanas contend that because the Act is invalid, and because they filed their claims within the statute of limitations, the lower court properly has jurisdiction over the underlying action.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1080\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin1080\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-360\li1080\ri1080\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin1080\lin1080\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 B.\tab Whether the Arbitration Act violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [14]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab This court has consistently held that the concept of separation of powers exists in Guam.}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 In re Request of Gutierrez}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 2002 Guam 1 at }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  32 (}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [U]nder the Organic Act, the government of Guam is comprised of three separate but co-equal branches of government.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 ); }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Hamlet v. Charfauros}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 1999 Guam 18, }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  9; }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Taisipic v. Marion}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 1996 Guam 9, }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  6.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
The applicability of the separation of powers doctrine is evident in the language of the Organic Act itself, which provides that }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [t]he government of Guam shall consist of three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial . . . .}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 48 U.S.C. }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  1421a (1992); }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
see also Hamlet}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 1999 Guam 18 at }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  9 (}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 By its very language, therefore, the Organic Act requires application of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers to gove
rnment of Guam functions.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 ) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid14767317 
\par }{\insrsid3721\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-360\li1800\ri1800\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin1800\lin1800\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 1.\tab Scope of legislative and judicial power under the Organic Act.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [15]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab The Organic Act provides for both legislative and judicial powers.}{
\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Under the Organic Act, the legislative power is vested in the }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Legislature of Guam.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 48 U.S.C. }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  1423a.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The Legislature}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s power }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 extend[s] to all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the provisions of . . . [the Organic Act] and the laws of the United States applicable to Guam.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Under the Organic Act, the judicial power is vested in }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 such local court or courts as may have been or shall hereafter be established by the laws of Guam . . . .}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 48 U.S.C. }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  1424(a).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [T]he essence of judicial power is the final authority to render and enforce a judgment or remedy.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Firelock Inc. v. Dist. Ct.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 776 P.2d 1090, 1094 (Colo. 1989).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Stated similarly, }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 the judicial power is the power to interpret and apply the laws to actual controversies.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
Judicial power has also been defined as }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
the power to hear and determine a cause and the rights of the parties to a controversy, and to render a binding judgment or decree based on present or past facts under existing laws.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
Gleason v. Samaritan Home and Church Mut. Ins. Co.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 926 P.2d 1349, 1359-60 (Kan. 1996) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid14767317 
\par }{\insrsid3721\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-360\li1800\ri1800\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin1800\lin1800\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 2.\tab 
Whether the Arbitration Act improperly delegates the judicial power to a non-judicial body.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par [16]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab The Laguanas contend that }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
the legislature has prevented the court from accomplishing its constitutional functions by delegating to a nonjudicial arbitration panel the power to make final and unreviewable determinations of the parties}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  rights and remedies.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Responsive Brief of Real Parties in Interest, p. 23.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 We disagree.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [17]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab The issue before us is whether the provisions of the Arbitration Act impermissibly infringe upon the judicial power to adjudicate and decide malpractice claims.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 If the statute does not preclude judicial review or enforcement, the judicial power is not infringed.}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 See Linder v. Smith}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
, 629 P.2d 1187, 1194 (Mont. 1981); }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Attorney Gen. v. Johnson}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 385 A.2d 57, 65 (Md. 1978), }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 appeal dismissed}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
, 439 U.S. 805, 99 S. Ct. 60 (1978), }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 disapproved on other grounds}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Newell v. Richards}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 594 A.2d 1152, 1161 (Md. 1991); }{
\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Firelock Inc.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 776 P.2d at 1094-95.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 We find that the provisions of the Arbitration Act do not impermissibly infringe upon the judicial power.}{
\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [18]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab In }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Linder v. Smith}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 629 P.2d 1187, the plaintiffs challenged a state statute which required th
at a malpractice claimant first submit the claim to a special panel prior to going to court.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Under the statute, the claimant was not bound by the panel}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s decision, and the panel}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s decision was inadmissible in any later court action.}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Linder}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 629 P.2d at 1188-89.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
The plaintiff claimed, among other arguments, that the statute permitted an }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
unlawful delegation of judicial and legislative power and infringes on the doctrine of separation of powers.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{
\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 . at 1193.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The appellate court disagreed.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The court defined the judicial power as }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 the powe
r of the court to decide and pronounce a judgment and carry it into effect between persons and parties who bring a case before it for decision.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 . at 1194.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The court further identified prior decisions }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 uph[olding] other administrative bodies against this [separation of powers] challenge, }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
where those bodies are unable to render enforceable judgments}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{
\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 . (emphasis added).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The court found no separation of powers violation in its case because }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 the decision of the Montana panel is not enforceable, and unlike the panel decisions in most states, it is not even admissible at trial.}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [19]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab Similarly, in }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Attorney General v. Johnson}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
, 385 A.2d 57 (Md. 1978), the claimants argued that the Maryland malpractice arbitration statute was unconstitutional because it required certai
n malpractice claimants to submit their claims to an arbitration panel for a determination of liability and damages prior to commencing a court action.}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 . at 59.}{
\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The claimants argued that the statute impermissibly }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
vests judicial power in an administrative agency contrary to the mandates of the Maryland constitution, which provides that the judicial power be vested in certain enumerated courts.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 . at 63.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The Maryland Supreme Court disagreed, noting first that }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
the mere performance by a nonjudicial body of a function that would in another context be considered purely judicial e.g., the determination of facts and the appli
cation of judicial principles to those facts cannot alone suffice to support a conclusion that the separation of powers principle has been violated.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The court emphasized that }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
adjudicatory determinations by [administrative] agencies are not judgments or decrees, . . . [and] that such an agency ascertains questions of fact and applies the law to those facts in a particular case does not alone vest it with judicial 
power in the constitutional sense.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 In determining the precise nature of the exercise of judicial power in the constitutional sense, the court }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 agree[d] with those courts which have said that the essence of judicial power is the final authority to render and enforce a judgment . . . .}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 . at 64.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The court further clarified that }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
it is elementary that an entity does not exercise the sovereign power of the State constitutionally assigned to the judiciary if its decision is in no sense final, binding, or enforceable . . . .}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 . at 65.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
The court found that the malpractice statute did not improperly vest a non-judicial entity with judicial powers because under the statute, any party could reject the arbitration panel}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s decision and proceed to court.}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
Furthermore, }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
[e]ven if the parties accept the decision of the arbitrators, the panel which made it cannot enforce it.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{
\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .; }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 see also Barrett}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 908 P.2d at
 700 (rejecting a separation of powers challenge to a statute requiring that malpractice claims be submitted first to a screening panel whose decision could be admitted as evidence at trial, and finding that the screening panel did not exercise judicial p
ower because the panel}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
s findings were not binding, and merely served as evidence at trial which could be completely rejected by the jury).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [20]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab Here, the Arbitration Act specifically provides that the arbitrators}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  decision may be confirmed by the Superior Court.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Title 10 GCA }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  10135 (1994).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Though not explicit, this language in the statute logically requires confirmation by the court before the award may be enforced.}{
\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The court must confirm the award upon request of the parties, however, the statute does provide the court with the authority to vacate, modify, or correct the award under certain circumstances.}{\insrsid3721  
}{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 See id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .; }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 see also }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Title 10 GCA }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  10136 (1994) (allowing the court to vacate the award where the award was procured by fraud or corruption, or the arbitrators exceeded their powers).}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Moreover, the Act provides for a trial }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 de novo}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Title 10 GCA }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  10139 (1994).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
In light of these provisions of the Act, we hold that the judicial power to hear and adjudicate malpractice claims is neither delegated to another tribunal, nor stripped from the courts.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [21]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab The lower court analogized the present case with the Illinois case }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Wright v. Cent. Du Page Hosp. Ass}{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 n}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 347 N.E.2d 736 (Ill. 1976).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 In }{
\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Wright}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , the appellants sought a declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of provisions of the Illinois medical malpractice statute.}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id
}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 . at 737.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The Illinois court first analyzed the provision in the statute requiring that malpractice claims be submitte
d to a medical review panel consisting of a circuit judge, a practicing attorney, and a practicing physician, for hearing and determination.}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  at 738.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The statute also provided that proceedings before the panel were to be }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
adversary, and each party may call and cross examine witnesses and introduce evidence as at a trial in the circuit court,}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  that the circuit judge would preside over the proceedings, and that the panel was tasked with deciding liability and damages.}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .}{
\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The court held that the statute violated the provision of the Illinois constitution providing that the judicial power resided with the courts.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
The court found that the }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
application of principles of law is inherently a judicial function . . . . [and] the Constitution vests the exclusive and entire judicial power in the courts.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 . at 739.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The court found that b
ecause the non-judicial members of the panel were empowered to make conclusions of law and fact over the dissent of the circuit judge who sat as a member of the panel, the statute empowers the nonjudicial members }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 to exercise a judicial function}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  in violation of the Illinois constitution.}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 . at 740.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
The court then held that in light of its holding that the statutes providing for medical review panels were unconstitutional, }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 it follows that the procedure prescribed therein as the prerequisite to jury trial is an impermissible restriction of the right on trial by jury . . . .}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 . at 741.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [22]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab The Laguanas analogize the present case with }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Wright}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , arguing that similar to }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
Wright}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , the provisions of the Guam Arbitration Act }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
substantially bar any appeal to the Superior Court, such that the arbitration award granted by a nonjudicial panel is, }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 de facto}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , unreviewable and final.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Response Brief of Real Parties in Interest, p. 23 (emphasis added).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
Their argument is essentially that because barriers exist that may deter the pursuit of an appeal, arbitration awards are rendered final adjudications of the malpractice claims.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [23]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab We do not find }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Wright }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 to be persuasive in our determination of the issue before us.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 In }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Wright}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , the court found t
hat because the statute empowered the arbitration panel to make conclusions of law and fact, it improperly delegated judicial power to a non-judicial body.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 This particular holding in }{
\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Wright}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  has been rejected by numerous courts which have instead found tha
t so long as the decision of the arbitrators is not independently enforceable and is reviewable by a court, the arbitrators are not exercising a judicial power. }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 See Firelock Inc.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
, 776 P.2d at 1095 n.2.}{\cs15\super\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid14767317 \chftn }{
\insrsid14767317  }{\fs20\insrsid14767317 In }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 Firelock}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 , the court held that the Colorado arbitr
ation act did not vest judicial authority in another branch because under the statute neither party was bound by the arbitrators}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid14767317  decision considering that either could demand a full trial de novo, and the district court, not the arbitrators, was required to enter the judgment.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 Id}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 
. at 1095.  The court also rejected reliance on }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 Wright}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 , finding that because }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 Wright}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 
 involved an arbitration panel which consisted of one judge and two non-judges, while the Colorado statute did not, }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 Wright }{\fs20\insrsid14767317 was distinguishable.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 Id}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 .}{
\i\fs20\insrsid14767317   }{\fs20\insrsid14767317 The court also noted that }{\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 
in addressing the validity of arbitration statutes, many courts in other jurisdictions have found }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 Wright}{\fs20\insrsid14767317  to be unpersuasive.}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14767317   }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 Id}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 . at 1095 n.2.  One court rejecting }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 Wright }{\fs20\insrsid14767317 flatly stated: }{\fs20\insrsid14767317 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 [T]he court [in }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 Wright}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 
] said no more than that the application of principles of law is inherently a judicial function,
 and that the nonjudicial members of the panel were empowered to exercise it.  We find that rationale, in view of all the considerations we have discussed above, singularly unpersuasive.}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14767317   }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 Id}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 . (quoting }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 Attorney Gen. v. Johnson}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 , 385 A.2d at 66-67). }}}{\insrsid3721  }
{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 While the Guam Arbitration Act empowers the arbitrators to determine liability and damages, the Act specifically provides that the arbitration award may either be confirmed by a court, or appealed in a trial}{
\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  de novo}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 This considered, and in accordance with the holdings of most courts, the arbitrators do not exercise judicial powers.}{\insrsid3721  }
{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Thus, while the Laguanas}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  validly argue that in accordance with }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Wright}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , the judicial po
wer may not be vested in nonjudicial tribunals, in accordance with the majority of courts that have decided the issue, we conclude that because the arbitrator}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s decision is not enforceable without court action, and because the decision may be reviewed }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 de novo}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
 in court, the Act does not improperly vest the arbitrators with judicial power.}{\insrsid14767317 
\par }{\insrsid3721\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-360\li1800\ri1800\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin1800\lin1800\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 3.\tab 
Whether the sanction provision of the Arbitration Act, which bases the award of attorney}{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
s fees on a comparison with the arbitrators}{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  award, deprives the court of its judicial power.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx1800\tx2880\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [24]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab 
The final argument pertaining to the separation of powers claim relates to the use of the arbitrators}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
 award in determining the attorney}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s fees sanction after trial.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Specifically, the lower court found, and the Laguanas argue, that because the attorney}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s fees penalty is determined by comparing the jury}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
s award with the arbitrators}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  award, the arbitrators}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  award is in effect unreviewable and binding to that extent, thus depriving the trial court of its power of judicial review.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 A very similar argument was made in }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Barrett v. Baird}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 908 P.2d 689 (Nev. 1995), although in the context of a due process challenge.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Barrett}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 908 P.2d at 696.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Under the Nevada attorney}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s fees provision, NRS 41A.056(2), if a claimant loses before an arbitration panel and thereafter files an action in court and does not prevail, the defendant is entitled to reasonable attorney}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s fees at trial.}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 See id. }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
at 969 n.10.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 In }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Barrett}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , the amicus arguing in support of the plaintiff argued that attorney}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s fees provision in the malpractice law denied the malpractice claimant of due process, and }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 suggest[ed] that a claimant must be provided with an opportunity to appeal the panel}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s negative finding because that finding may ultimately provide the basis for an award of attorney fees and costs under NRS 41A.056(2).}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 . at 700 n.20.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The court disagreed, finding that while the review panel}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
s decision was not subject to appellate review, the screening panel statute }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 provides something better }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  a }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 de novo}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  trial.}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
The court further found that }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [m]ore fundamentally, amici}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s due process claim ignores the fact that it is not the panel finding, but the final jury verdict, that triggers the fee award.}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [25]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab Admittedly, the attorney}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
s fees provision at issue in the present case is more onerous than the fee-shifting provision in the }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Barrett }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 case.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
However, we nonetheless apply a similar analysis in scrutinizing the local Act.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Under the Arbitration Act, if an appealing par
ty is not also a prevailing party as defined in the Act, the appealing party must pay the other party}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
s trial attorney}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s fees, costs, and jury costs.}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 See}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  10 GCA }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  10142, 10143 (defining the prevailing party as the appealing party who improves upon the arbitration award by 40%, or who has not appealed and the other party fails to improve the award by 40%).}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
The Laguanas essentially contend that by using the arbitration award as a basis for determining whether the appealing party is a prevailing party, the arbitration award, which itself is unreviewable, has a binding effect on the lower court}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s decision on whether the sanction should be imposed.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
In other words, this circumstance ties the hands of the judge, thereby impinging his judicial power to adjudicate the malpractice claim.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [26]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab While the arbitrators}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
 award is used to determine who is the prevailing party after a trial }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 de novo}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , the fact remains that any sanctions are fundamentally based on the jury}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s final award, which is made in accordance with and under the supervision of the judicial authority.}{
\cs15\super\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid14767317 \chftn }{\insrsid14767317  }{
\fs20\insrsid14767317 Note, also, that it is within the legislature}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 s authority to provide for fee-shifting.  }{
\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 See Fleming v. Quigley}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 , 2003 Guam 4, }{\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 
 7 (stating that a recognized exception to the American Rule that each party pays his own attorney}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 
s fees is where fee-shifting is authorized by statute).  The sanction provision in the Arbitration Act is a fee-shifting provision.  It provides that the non-prevailing appellant is required to pay the attorney}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 s fees.  The fact that statutory fee shifting is a recognized exception to the American Rule indicates that there is no }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 per se }{
\fs20\insrsid14767317 improper usurpation of judicial authority to mandate that fees are to be awarded to a particular party by statute.  To the extent
 that the fee-shifting provision otherwise complies with constitutional requirements, it is a proper exercise of the legislative authority.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 See id}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 .}{\insrsid14767317  }}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 

\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [27]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab Furthermore, even assuming the legislature}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s attempt to base the fee-shifting on the arbitrators}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
 award, rendering the award unreviewable in that particular regard, amounts to an infringement on the judicial authority to review the award, we nonetheless find no defect, of constitutional proportions, in the fee-shifting provision.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 See In re Request of Gutierrez}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 2003 Guam 1, }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  34.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [28]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab In determining whether there has been a separation of powers violation, we employ a two-part inquiry.}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 See Perez}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 1999 Guam 2 at }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  17.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
The first question is whether the legislative enactment (i.e., statute) prevents another branch from accomplishing its constitutional functions.}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 In re Request of Gutierrez}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
, 2002 Guam 1 at }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  34.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
If the answer is yes, the second question is }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
whether the disruptive impact is justified by any overriding constitutional need.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [29]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab As the trial court correctly pointed out, the legislature did not include a statement of purpose or policy when enacting the Arbitration Act.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 See }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Guam Pub. L. No. 21-043.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 In fact,
 the only explanation in the current Act was that the prior medical malpractice arbitration act of 1975 was repealed and reenacted in its entirety.}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Id}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 .}{
\cs15\super\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid14767317 6}{\insrsid14767317  }{
\fs20\insrsid14767317 The 1975 Act was invalidated by the Appellate Division, and the decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. }{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 See Awa v. Guam Mem. Hosp. Auth.}{\fs20\insrsid14767317 , 726 F.2d 594 (9th Cir. 1984).}{
\insrsid14767317    }}}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
However, Bill 325, which was approved by a majority of the senators of the Legislature for passage, and later enacted as P.L. 21-043, contained legislative committee findings as follows:}{\insrsid14767317 
\par }{\insrsid3721\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qj \fi360\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3721 {\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The Committee finds that the medical malpractice problem has reache
d a crisis proportion during the last two decades.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
This dilemma is not a private battle between health care providers and their insurers, but rather, that increased costs are inevitably passed on to the consumer in the form of higher medical fees and costs.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
Costs also increase as a result of }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 defensive medicine}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  practiced by physicians in an effort to avoid malpractice suits.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 In the end, many insurance companies curre
ntly refuse to offer malpractice coverage or have raised the cost of premiums to prohibitive levels.
\par The Guam Legislature tried to address the issue of medical malpractice when Public Law 13-115 was enacted into law on December 23, 1975.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 However, this pie
ce of legislation was struck down by the courts because it contained sections that are mutually incongruous and incompatible which makes the law inorganic and unenforceable.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par Bill No. 325 provides that Legislature}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
s response to the crisis of medical malpractice claims and offers solid framework toward this end. 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par SB Bill No. 325, 21st Leg. (Guam 1991) (Findings).}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [30]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab It is apparent that P.L. 21-043 was passed as a result of the perceived problem associated with the increase in the cost of malpractice insurance, and even its unavailability.}{
\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The committee found that the island was faced with a dilemma due to the passing on of high medical fees and costs to the consumer, as well as the increase in costs of medic
al care due in part to the tendency of physicians to practice }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 defensive medicine}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  to avoid malpractice suits.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
The Guam Legislature apparently believed that the provisions of the Arbitration Act would remedy what it perceived as a crisis situation in the area of medical malpractice.
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [31]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab It is reasonable to conclude that linking the statutory sanction to the differences between the arbitration award and the jury}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
s award forces parties to consider the likelihood that it would significantly improve upon the award at trial, and that the legislature was likely responding to a need to keep medical insurance costs down
 for the jurisdiction, thereby maintaining the availability of affordable health care.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
We find that this qualifies as an overriding constitutional need satisfying the minimal infringement on the power of the judiciary to review the arbitrator}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s award.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1080\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin1080\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-360\li1080\ri1080\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin1080\lin1080\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 C.\tab Access to the Courts, Right to a Jury Trial, Due Process and Equal Protection.}{
\b\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [32]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab In this proceeding, the Laguanas also claim that the Arbitration Act deprives the Superior Court of the power to adjudicate 
arbitration claims thus violating the separation of powers doctrine because the provisions of the Act limit free access to the courts.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
A free access claim relates to individual rights, rather than the separation of governmental powers.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Similarly, the Lag
uanas contend that the Arbitration Act infringes upon the right to a jury trial, equal protection, and due process guarantees.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The Laguanas evidently raised these challenges in the trial court.}{\insrsid3721 
 }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 However, the trial court}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
s decision invalidating the Arbitration Act was limited to a separation of powers analysis.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
In its decision, the trial court did touch upon the costs associated with proceeding through arbitration; however, such discussion was related to the court}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s determination that the Arbitration Act violated the separation of powers doctrine.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
Thus, the trial court did not decide the organicity of the Arbitration Act, facially or as applied, in relation to the various rights identified by the Laguanas.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 
We decline to address these arguments in this proceeding in the first instance.}{\insrsid3721  }{\i\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 See Brown v. United States}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 , 851 F.2d 615, 620 (3d Cir. 1988). 
\par }{\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [33]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab We further note that addressing
 these issues here is inappropriate because the Laguanas apparently base many of their constitutional challenges on details involved in arbitrating under the American Arbitration Association (}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 AAA}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 ).}{
\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 It is unclear whether the AAA may be used to litigate the dispute in the present case in light of its recent announcement that it will }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 no longer accept the administration of cases involving individual patients without a post-dispute agreement to arbitrate.}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 American Arbitration Association, Health Care Policy Statement.}{\cs15\super\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid14767317 \chftn }{\insrsid14767317  }{\fs20\insrsid14767317 American Arbitration Association, Health Care Policy Statement, }
{\i\fs20\insrsid14767317 available at}{\fs20\insrsid14767317  }{\cs16\fs20\ul\cf2\insrsid14767317 http://www.adr.org/index2.1.jsp?JSPssid=16235&JSPsrc=upload/livesite/focusArea/Healthcare/HEALTH%20CARE%20POLICY%20STATEMENT.htm}{\insrsid14767317 
\par }}}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 The availability of arbitrating before the AAA may affect the additional constitutional challenges raised in thi
s case, and may require further briefing and possible factual findings which are more appropriately left for determination by the trial court. 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 IV.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1080\tx2160\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3721 {\b\insrsid3721 
\par }{\b\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 [34]}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 \tab In accordance with the foregoing, we hold that the Mandatory Medical Malpractice Arbitration Act does not violate the separation of powers doctrine.}{\insrsid3721  }{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 Thus, the lower court erred in finding the Arbitration Act to be inorganic on that ground.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 We make no determination on whether the provisions of the Act violate the Laguanas}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  rights to a jury trial and free access to the courts, or due process and equal protection rights.}{
\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 We order that a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the Superior Court to vacate its decision denying MPG}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 We further direct the court to re-examine MPG}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 s motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid3721  }{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 In deciding the motion to dismiss, the Superior Court shall consider the Laguanas}{
\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14767317\charrsid3721  remaining constitutional challenges to the application of the Arbitration Act in this case.
\par }}