Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists

Held that statutes requiring the patient to obtain expert testimony of a board-certified urologist to establish the requisite standard of care in the patient’s negligence action did not violate the anti-abrogation clause, despite the patient’s allegations that no board-certified urologist would testify due to guidance issued by professional medical association. The statutes permissibly regulated, but did not bar, his right to bring a negligence action.