OAG asks court to strike plaintiffs’ scandalous statements

The Office of the Attorney General has asked the Superior Court to strike alleged scandalous statements contained in the pleadings filed in connection with the medical malpractice lawsuit brought by Remedio Elameto and her common-law husband Pedro Pua against the CNMI government and two former doctors at the Commonwealth Health Center.

Assistant attorney general Charles E. Brasington, counsel for the CNMI government and co-defendants, moved the court yesterday to strike portions of plaintiffs Elameto and Pua’s opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Brasington said under the Commonwealth Rule of Civil Procedure, the court may strike any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter in any pleadings.

Brasington said the Attorney General is not a party to this lawsuit.

He said statements that “reflect adversely on the moral character of an individual who is not a party to [a] suit” should be stricken as scandalous and impertinent.

Brasington said plaintiffs’ statements about the AG, and, indeed, plaintiffs’ consistent use of the term AG to mean “defendant” or “Commonwealth,” do not add to plaintiffs’ argument.

Brasington said plaintiffs’ assertion that defendants’ argument that common law marriage does not exist in the Commonwealth is “offensive” is particularly unwarranted, as the issue of whether common law marriage exists in the CNMI will be reviewed by the Supreme Court this term.

The AAG cited plaintiffs’ statements that include “But instead of acting with compassion and offering to compensate Remedio for the pain she had gone through, the Office of the Attorney General denied her claim…”

Brasington said characterizing the OAG in this fashion is scandalous because it unnecessarily characterizes OAG as an uncaring, if not malevolent, entity.

He pointed out that OAG is tasked with evaluating claims made against the Commonwealth and its employees, and determining after investigation and research whether to litigate the case.

“Rejecting a claim where legal defenses exist does not turn the Office of the Attorney General into a cartoonish Disney villain,” he said.

Brasington cited several other plaintiffs’ statements that according to him are scandalous.

Elameto and Pua, are suing the CNMI government and two former CHC doctors Rajee Iyer and Gary Ramsey for medical malpractice, bad faith, and emotional distress and loss of consortium.

Elameto and Pua asked the court to hold the defendants liable to pay them damages, court costs, and attorney’s fees.

Elameto claimed that a surgical team at CHC allegedly left a 15-centimeter long surgical clamp in her abdomen during a surgery to address her irregular periods and ovarian cysts at CHC on Saipan in August 2000.

Elameto disclosed that it was in June 2014 or almost 14 years later when the surgical clamp was discovered and removed at Guam Memorial Hospital.

The government, through OAG, then moved to dismiss the lawsuit.

The OAG argued, among other things, that according to the Commonwealth statute of limitations for medical malpractice, the following actions shall be commenced only within two years after the cause of action accrues—“actions for malpractice, error, or mistake against physicians, surgeons, dentists, medical or dental practitioners, and medical or dental assistants.”

The plaintiffs, through counsel Claire Kelleher-Smith, opposed the motion to dismiss.