In the April 11 editorial, "Don't weaken malpractice reform," The Day argues that the current law relating to the Certificate of Good Faith should remain as is. The Day posits that the certificate from a "similar" health care provider, rather than a "qualified" health care provider, is essential because the certificate is not subject to cross-examination. This artificial distinction only serves to bar the courthouse door to injured patients.

Consider a patient who develops a bed sore while in a nursing home through medical negligence. The patient is cared for by LPNs, RNs, an APRN (wound care certified) and a medical doctor. The doctor supervises each of the nursing specialties, knows the standard of care that applies to each and is "qualified" to testify as to each at trial. Nevertheless, the patient must obtain opinion letters from each nursing specialty in order to institute the claim.

It should be sufficient that the certificate say why the opinion writer is qualified to offer an opinion relating to the specific specialty. Neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons who do the exact same surgery and are qualified to testify at trial should be able to provide the certificate as well. The certificate as it is does not serve justice.