VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice.
[¶ 1] Monte and Kris Hoffner appealed from a judgment dismissing their claims against Dr. George M. Johnson and Fargo Clinie/MeritCare. We affirm, concluding the six-year statute of repose for medical malpractice is constitutional and bars the claims in this action.
I
[¶ 2] In 1988, Dr. Johnson diagnosed fourteen-year-old Monte Hoffner with Type I diabetes. Monte was hospitalized for a time and, upon discharge, continued receiving treatment for his diabetes. In 1992, Monte again saw Dr. Johnson and underwent additional testing. On May 28, 1992, Dr. Johnson advised Monte in a letter that his diabetes had been cured and Monte did not need to do routine blood sugar testing:
Monte, I feel strongly you have had in the past Type II diabetes, rather than [912]*912Type I diabetes. You have never had ketones in your urine or diabetic ketoa-cidosis ....
All this means that you have “lost” your diabetes because you lost a lot of weight following your original diagnosis in 1988. The stability of blood sugars and the very small doses of insulin ever since 1988 suggest you have a very unusual circumstance, Type II diabetes of youth (which in itself is rare) followed by “cure” of diabetes because you lost weight and have maintained a high activity level.
You should not need to do blood sugars in the future unless you start to gain a lot of weight. Please be advised when you grow older that diabetes can “return” if you are not careful about what you eat and you gain weight.
Insofar as I am concerned, there is absolutely no reason for insurance programs to cause difficulty for you during enrollment. Again, you have “lost” your Type II diabetes mellitus.
Dr. Johnson did not treat Monte or have any further contact with him after the 1992 letter.
[¶ 3] In December 1999, Monte experienced flu-like symptoms and weight loss. Doctors discovered Monte was still diabetic and recommenced msulin treatments. Monte suffered numerous complications allegedly caused by his untreated diabetes, including loss of vision in both eyes, peripheral neuropathy, cancer, and a pancreas transplant. Monte died on January 4, 2002, at the age of 27.
[¶ 4] On November 20, 2001, shortly before Monte died, he and his wife Kris brought this medical malpractice action against Dr. Johnson and Fargo Clinic/Mer-itCare. Dr. Johnson and Fargo Clinic/MeritCare (collectively “Johnson”) moved for summary judgment under the six-year statute of repose for medical malpractice actions in N.D.C.C. § 28-01-18(3). On June 7, 2002, the court granted Johnson’s motion for summary judgment. Judgment dismissing the action was entered on June 25, 2002, and the Hoffners appealed.1
II
[¶5] Summary judgment is a procedural device for promptly and expeditiously disposing of an action without a trial if either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and no dispute exists as to either the material facts or the reasonable inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts, or if resolving the factual disputes will not alter the result. Jundt v. Jurassic [913]*913Res. Dev., 2003 ND 9, ¶ 23, 656 N.W.2d 15; Hilton v. North Dakota Educ. Ass’n, 2002 ND 209, ¶ 23, 655 N.W.2d 60. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and that party will be given the benefit of all favorable inferences which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Abel v. Allen, 2002 ND 147, ¶ 8, 651 N.W.2d 635; Mr. G’s Turtle Mountain Lodge, Inc. v. Roland Township, 2002 ND 140, ¶ 21, 651 N.W.2d 625. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law which we review de novo on the entire record. Kondrad v. Bismarck Park Dist., 2003 ND 4, ¶ 4, 655 N.W.2d 411; Duemeland v. Norback, 2003 ND 1, ¶ 8, 655 N.W.2d 76.
Ill
[¶ 6] The district court granted summary judgment based upon the six-year statute of repose found in N.D.C.C. § 28-01-18(3), which provides in part:
28-01-18. Actions having two-year limitations. The following actions must be commenced within two years after the claim for relief has accrued:
[[Image here]]
3. An action for the recovery of damages resulting from malpractice; provided, however, that the limitation of an action against a physician or licensed hospital will not be extended beyond six years of the act or omission of alleged malpractice by a non-discovery thereof unless discovery was prevented by the fraudulent conduct of the physician or licensed hospital.
[¶ 7] The “act or omission of alleged malpractice” relied upon by Hoffner is the May 28, 1992, letter from Dr. Johnson informing Monte his diabetes had been cured and he did not need to regularly monitor his blood sugar. Because Hoffner did not commence this action until 9¼ years after the letter, the district court concluded the action was barred by N.D.C.C. § 28-01-18(3). The court rejected Hoffner’s argument that the six-year statute of repose was unconstitutional. On appeal, Hoffner argues the six-year statute of repose violates the equal protection clause.
A
[¶ 8] All regularly enacted statutes carry a strong presumption of constitutionality, which is conclusive unless the party challenging the statute clearly demonstrates that it contravenes the state or federal constitution. Grand Forks Prof'l Baseball, Inc. v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 2002 ND 204, ¶ 17, 654 N.W.2d 426; Olson v. Bismarck Parks & Recreation Dist., 2002 ND 61, ¶ 11, 642 N.W.2d 864. Any doubt about a statute’s constitutionality must, where possible, be resolved in favor of its validity. State v. Burr, 1999 ND 143, ¶ 9, 598 N.W.2d 147. Whether a statute is unconstitutional is a question of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal. Id.
B
[¶ 9] In reviewing the constitutionality of N.D.C.C. § 28-01-18(3), we must first resolve a dispute whether the six-year period under the statute is a statute of limitation or a statute of repose. We distinguished the two in Hanson v. Williams County, 389 N.W.2d 319, 321 (N.D.1986) (citations omitted):
Statutes of repose are different from statutes of limitation, although they have comparable effects. A statute of limitation bars a right of action unless it is filed within a specified period of time after an injury occurs. The purpose of a statute of limitation is to prevent “plaintiffs from sleeping on their legal rights to the detriment of defendants”. Dick[914]*914son, The Statute of Limitations in North Dakota’s Products Liability Act: An Exercise in Futility?, 59 N.D. L.Rev. 551, 556 (1983); State v. Halverson, 69 N.D. 225, 226, 285 N.W. 292, 298 (1939). A statute of limitation period commences either upon the occurrence of an injury, or when the injury is discovered. A statute of limitation must allow a reasonable time after a cause of action arises for the filing of a lawsuit.
A statute of repose terminates any right of action after a specific time has elapsed, regardless of whether or not there has as yet been an injury. A statute of repose period begins to run from the occurrence of some event other than the event of an injury that gives rise to a cause of action and, therefore, bars a cause of action before the injury occurs. A person injured after the statutory period of repose is left without a remedy for the injury.
[¶ 10] The first portion of N.D.C.C. § 28-01-18(3) is a statute of limitation, providing that an action for malpractice must be commenced within two years. The two-year limitation period for malpractice actions is subject to the discovery rule, and the two years begins to run only when the plaintiff knows, or with reasonable diligence should know, of the injury, its cause, and the defendant’s possible negligence. Schanilec v. Grand Forks Clinic, Ltd., 1999 ND 165, ¶ 12, 599 N.W.2d 253; Zettel v. Licht, 518 N.W.2d 214, 215 (N.D.1994).
[¶ 11] The second part of the statute provides that, in medical malpractice cases only, no cause of action may be brought after six years from the act or omission of alleged malpractice. This part of the statute is a statute of repose. It does not commence from the time of injury, but from the date of the alleged negligent act. Although we have recognized that a medical malpractice action will generally accrue on the date of the alleged negligent act or omission, see Schanilec, 1999 ND 165, ¶ 11, 599 N.W.2d 253, that is not always the case. The occurrence of the negligent act and the injury to the plaintiff will not always be concurrent, and in such cases the cause of action does not accrue until the injury has occurred and manifested itself. This case is just such an example. The gravamen of Hoffner’s argument is that Johnson misdiagnosed Monte’s diabetes and told him he did not need to monitor his blood sugar in the future. It -is unknown whether the “injury” to Monte occurred one week, one year, or more than six years after Johnson’s letter, because we do not know when regular blood sugar monitoring would have indicated Monte needed to go back on insulin or have other treatment. Monte certainly could not have brought a medical malpractice action immediately after Johnson’s letter, because at that point he had not suffered a compensable injury and damages caused by the alleged negligence.
[¶ 12] Courts in other jurisdictions construing similar statutes have held that the second portion of the statute, barring an action after a set period of years from the alleged negligent act or omission, constitutes a statute of repose. See, e.g., Siler v. Block, 204 Ga.App. 672, 420 S.E.2d 306, 307 (1992); Ferrara v. Wall, 323 Ill.App.3d 751, 257 Ill.Dec. 553, 753 N.E.2d 1179, 1181 (2001); Sills v. Oakland Gen. Hosp., 220 Mich.App. 303, 559 N.W.2d 348, 351-52 (1996); Garcia ex rel. Garcia v. LaFarge, 119 N.M. 532, 893 P.2d 428, 433 (1995); see also Robert W. George, Comment, Prognosis Questionable: An Examination of the Constitutional Health of the Arkansas Medical Malpractice Statute of Repose, 50 Ark. L.Rev. 691, 696 (1998); Patrick E. Sullivan, Note, Medical Malpractice Statute of Repose: An Unconstitutional Deni[915]*915al of Access to the Courts, 63 Neb. L.Rev. 150, 153-54 (1984); Christopher J. Trombetta, Note, The Unconstitutionality of Medical Malpractice Statutes of Repose: Judicial Conscience Versus Legislative Will, 34 Vill. L.Rev. 397, 400-01 (1989).
[¶ 13] Because the six-year period under N.D.C.C. § 28-01-18(3) begins to run upon the negligent act or omission, and not from the date of injury, it is a statute of repose. See Hanson, 389 N.W.2d at 321.
C
[¶ 14] Hoffner argues the six-year statute of repose of N.D.C.C. § 28-01-18(3) violates the equal protection clause because it creates an unconstitutional classification by allowing claims by medical malpractice plaintiffs whose injuries were discoverable within six years of the negligent act or omission but barring claims by plaintiffs whose injuries do not occur or manifest themselves within six years.
[¶ 15] In addressing equal protection challenges to statutes of repose, we have recognized that the right to recover for personal injuries is an important substantive right. Dickie v. Farmers Union Oil Co. of LaMoure, 2000 ND 111, ¶ 5, 611 N.W.2d 168; Bellemare v. Gateway Builders, Inc., 420 N.W.2d 733, 736 (N.D.1988); Hanson v. Williams County, 389 N.W.2d 319, 325 (N.D.1986). When a statute is challenged on equal protection grounds and an important substantive right is involved, we apply an intermediate standard of review requiring a close correspondence between the statutory classification and the legislative goals. Olson, 2002 ND 61, ¶ 11, 642 N.W.2d 864; Dickie, at ¶ 5; Bellemare, at 736; Hanson, at 323. In assessing statutory classifications under an equal protection analysis, we may consider unarticulated, as well as articulated, legislative purposes and goals. See State v. Leppert, 2003 ND 15, ¶ 18, 656 N.W.2d 718; Olson, at ¶ 11; Haney v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 518 N.W.2d 195, 202 (N.D.1994); Bellemare, at 738.
[¶ 16] Hoffner contends the result in this case should be controlled by our decision in Hanson, in which this Court held the ten-year statute of repose for products liability actions violated equal protection. Johnson counters that this case is more like Bellemare, in which this Court upheld a statute of repose for actions brought against persons who designed, planned, or constructed improvements to real property.
[¶ 17] Hoffner argues that, as in the products liability statute of repose struck down in Hanson, the legislative history for the medical malpractice statute of repose indicates concerns with a perceived insurance crisis. The Court in Hanson concluded that, although there may have been an insurance crisis facing North Dakota products manufacturers, the legislature’s chosen solution to that problem was questionable. Hanson, 389 N.W.2d at 328. Although the legislative history underlying the enactment of the medical malpractice statute of repose in 1975 is based in part upon concerns over availability and cost of malpractice insurance for North Dakota physicians, there are important distinctions between this case and Hanson. When the legislature enacted the products liability statute of repose, the State Insurance Commissioner opposed the bill and specifically testified that the statute of repose would not alleviate the problem of increasing insurance premiums for manufacturers in the state. Hanson, at 329 (Levine, J., specially concurring). By contrast, the Insurance Commissioner supported enactment of the medical malpractice statute of repose, testifying that there was a crisis situation, that insurers were discontinuing writing malpractice cover[916]*916age, that claims paid were exceeding premiums collected, and that new doctors were unable to purchase malpractice insurance. See Hearing on S.B. 2348 Before the Senate Judiciary Comm., 44th N.D. Legis. Sess. (Feb. 5, 1975) (testimony of J.O. Wigen, North Dakota Insurance Commissioner); Hearing on S.B. 234-8 Before the House Judiciary Comm., 44th N.D. Legis Sess. (March 4, 1975) (testimony of J.O. Wigen, North Dakota Insurance Commissioner) [“House Hearing on S.B. 234-8”]. Other testimony on Senate Bill 2348 indicated a period of repose was needed to set a time beyond which claims could not be made because “evidence becomes more scattered,” and most malpractice claims would be discovered within the period of repose. See House Hearing on S.B. 234-8 (testimony of Rep. Kretschmar).
[¶ 18] There are also similarities between the legislative goals for the statute of repose upheld in Bellemare and the medical malpractice statute of repose at issue in this case. In upholding the statute of repose for designers and constructors of improvements to real property, the Court in Bellemare stressed the potential for virtually unlimited liability for such defendants:
[I]t appears that the Legislature’s intention was simply to limit what would otherwise be virtually unlimited and perpetual exposure to liability for persons engaged in the “design, planning, supervision or observation of construction or construction” of improvements to real property without eliminating liability entirely by affording a reasonable period within which defects might be manifested and suits brought for injuries caused by defects.
[[Image here]]
Here, we discern no illegal purpose in the goal of obtaining finality resulting in financial security and peace of mind by restricting what would otherwise by virtually unlimited and perpetual exposure to persons engaged in the design, planning, supervision, and observation of construction, or construction of improvements to real property.
Bellemare, 420 N.W.2d at 737-38.
[¶ 19] In contrast to Hanson, which involved liability for defective products which normally have a limited useful life, the Court in Bellemare stressed the longer useful life of improvements to real property:
“Since construction projects generally have expected useful lives of many years or decades, the possibilities for long-term liability for the professional architect or design engineer are enormous.”
Bellemare, 420 N.W.2d at 737 (quoting Yarbro v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 655 P.2d 822, 825 (Colo.1982)). The Court concluded that it was the legislature’s judgment that construction or design defects are likely to be discovered within a reasonable period after completion of the improvement, and the legislature had fixed the period at ten years. Bellemare, at 737. Accordingly, the Court concluded there was a close correspondence between the statutory classification and the legislative goals. Id.
[¶ 20] Like the designers and constructors of improvements to real property, physicians could be subject to virtually unlimited liability without the statute of repose. Just as a construction project may stand for “years or decades,” a person may live for years or decades before an act of medical malpractice manifests itself, raising the possibility of “long-term liability” for the physician or hospital. See Bellemare, 420 N.W.2d at 737.
[¶ 21] We also note that the majority of courts which have addressed this issue have upheld similar medical malpractice [917]*917statutes of repose challenged on equal protection grounds. See, e.g., Brubaker v. Cavanaugh, 741 F.2d 318, 321-22 (10th Cir.1984) (applying Kansas statute); Jewson v. Mayo Clinic, 691 F.2d 405, 411 (8th Cir.1982) (applying Minnesota statute); Golden v. Johnson Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 66 Conn.App. 518, 785 A.2d 234, 246-48 (2001); Craven v. Lowndes County Hosp. Auth., 263 Ga. 657, 437 S.E.2d 308, 309-10 (1993); Valentine v. Thomas, 433 So.2d 289, 292-93 (La.Ct.App.1983); Sills v. Oakland Gen. Hosp., 220 Mich.App. 303, 559 N.W.2d 348, 353 (1996); Cummings v. X-Ray Assocs. of New Mexico, P.C., 121 N.M. 821, 918 P.2d 1321, 1331-33 (1996); Hoffman v. Powell, 298 S.C. 338, 380 S.E.2d 821, 822 (1989); Burris v. Ikard, 798 S.W.2d 246, 249-50 (Tenn.Ct.App.1990). But see DeYoung v. Providence Med. Ctr., 136 Wash.2d 136, 960 P.2d 919, 924-26 (1998) (applying the rational basis test in holding Washington’s eight-year medical malpractice statute of repose violated the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution). While we recognize that the cases upholding similar medical malpractice statutes of repose have employed a rational basis analysis when considering the constitutionality of their respective provisions, in many instances those jurisdictions do not recognize an intermediate standard of review for classifications involving an important substantive right, and the choice was therefore between only a rational basis standard and strict scrutiny. See Golden, at 247; Craven, at 310; Valentine, at 292.
[¶ 22] In upholding statutes of repose, courts have stressed the need to create a reasonable limit on the legal consequences of a wrong and the difficulty in proof of old claims:
The statute of limitations and repose sections are a way of implementing the public policy of limiting the legal consequences of wrongs to a controllable degree. “There are two principal reasons generally given for the enactment of a statute of repose: (1) it reflects a policy of law, as declared by the legislature, that after a given length of time a [defendant] should be sheltered from liability and furthers the public policy of allowing people, after the lapse of a reasonable time, to plan'their affairs with a degree of certainty, free from the disruptive burden of protracted and unknown potential liability ... and (2) to avoid the difficulty in proof and record keeping which suits involving older [claims] impose.”
Golden, 785 A.2d at 241 (quoting Sanborn v. Greenwald, 39 Conn.App. 289, 664 A.2d 803, 811-12 (1995)).
[¶ 23] We conclude there is a close correspondence between the statutory classification and the legislative goals, and accordingly the six-year medical malpractice statute of repose of N.D.C.C. § 28-01-18(3) does not violate equal protection.
IV
[¶ 24] Hoffner argues Johnson should be precluded from relying upon the six-year statute of repose under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
[¶ 25] Equitable estoppel may operate to preclude application of statutes of limitation or repose as a defense by one who has misled another, thereby inducing that person to not file a claim within the statutory period. See Snortland v. State, 2000 ND 162, ¶ 15, 615 N.W.2d 574; Narum v. Faxx Foods, Inc., 1999 ND 45, ¶ 24, 590 N.W.2d 454; In re Estate of Helling, 510 N.W.2d 595, 596-97 (N.D.1994). The doctrine of equitable estoppel is codified at N.D.C.C. § 31-11-06, which provides:
When a party, by that party’s own declaration, act, or omission, intentional[918]*918ly and deliberately has led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, that party shall not be permitted to falsify it in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission.
See Narum, at ¶ 24; American Ins. Co. v. Midwest Motor Express, Inc., 554 N.W.2d 182, 188 (N.D.1996); Estate of Helling, at 597; Burr v. Trinity Med. Ctr., 492 N.W.2d 904, 908 (N.D.1992).
[¶ 26] To successfully implement the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude application of a statute of limitation or repose, the plaintiff has the burden of proving (1) the defendant made statements intending the plaintiff would rely on them; (2) the plaintiff in fact relied on them, and as a result failed to commence her action within the prescribed period; and (3) the statements were made prior to the expiration of the statutory period. Narum, 1999 ND 45, ¶ 24, 590 N.W.2d 454; American Ins. Co., 554 N.W.2d at 188; Burr, 492 N.W.2d at 908. In addition, the defendant’s conduct must amount to “some form of affirmative deception.” Narum, at 1124. As noted in Krueger v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., 305 N.W.2d 18, 25 (N.D.1981):
Estoppel, in the context where it is urged as a defense to the statute of limitations, is concerned with the actions of one guilty of wrongdoing and operates to preclude the application of the statute of limitations as a defense by the wrongdoer.
[¶ 27] In support of her assertion of equitable estoppel, Hoffner relies solely upon Johnson’s May 28, 1992, letter advising Monte that his diabetes had been cured and that he no longer needed to regularly monitor his blood sugar levels. In essence, Hoffner relies upon the very act she claims constituted malpractice to also equitably estop Johnson from asserting a defense under the statute of repose. While Johnson’s statements may arguably have constituted negligence, they do not constitute an affirmative deception intended to induce Hoffner to fail to timely commence a medical malpractice action. See American Ins. Co., 554 N.W.2d at 188.
[¶ 28] Cases from other jurisdictions similarly conclude that the alleged underlying act of medical malpractice cannot also provide the basis for equitable estop-pel to defeat a statute of limitations defense. See Rowell v. McCue, 188 Ga.App. 528, 373 S.E.2d 243, 245-46 (1988) (mere misdiagnosis insufficient to support equitable estoppel); Dasha v. Maine Med. Ctr., 665 A.2d 993, 995 (Me.1995) (misdiagnosis insufficient to support equitable estoppel); Duncan v. Augter, 286 Or. 723, 596 P.2d 555, 560 (1979) (the treatment or operation whose failure provides the basis of the plaintiffs complaint cannot provide the basis for equitable estoppel). As noted by the court in Duncan, at 560, allowing a plaintiff to assert equitable estoppel based solely upon discovery of the allegedly unprofessional treatment would be a “bootstrap justification for a delayed claim.”
[¶ 29] We conclude the district court did not err in concluding Johnson was not equitably estopped from asserting the defense of the statute of repose.
V
[¶ 30] Hoffner urges this Court to adopt the continuous treatment rule and to hold that the statutes of limitation and repose under N.D.C.C. § 28-01-18(3) were tolled by a continuing course of treatment. This Court has never adopted the continuous treatment rule in medical malpractice cases. See Schanilec v. Grand Forks Clinic Ltd., 1999 ND 165, ¶ 21, 599 N.W.2d 253. We need not determine whether to adopt the rule because we conclude that, were we to adopt the doctrine, [919]*919the rule would not apply under the undisputed facts in this case.
[¶ 31] The continuous treatment doctrine is premised upon an ongoing and continuous relationship between patient and physician. Schanilec, 1999 ND 165, ¶ 21, 599 N.W.2d 253; Wheeler v. Schmid Labs., Inc., 451 N.W.2d 133, 138 (N.D.1990); Froysland v. Altenburg, 439 N.W.2d 797, 799 (N.D.1989). We have explained the rationale for the rule:
The reasons underlying the rule are that a patient must trust a physician to remain in his care and that during that care, the patient is not likely to suspect negligent treatment. It is the trust relationship that may make discovery of a claim difficult. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has summarized the appropriate factors for determining when treatment ends:
“(1) whether there is a relationship between physician and patient with regard to the illness; (2) whether the physician is attending and examining the patient; and (3) whether there is something more to be done.”
Wheeler, at 138 (quoting Krause v. Farber, 379 N.W.2d 93, 96 (Minn.Ct.App.1985)).
[¶ 32] The continuing treatment doctrine requires an active physician-patient relationship, and is not triggered by actions such as the patient continuing on prescribed medications, return visits to merely check the patient’s condition, or monitoring without additional treatment. See Harlfinger v. Martin, 435 Mass. 38, 754 N.E.2d 63, 75 (2001). Thus, we concluded that the rule did not apply when two years had passed since the patient had last been seen by the doctor. Schanilec, 1999 ND 165, ¶¶ 22-23, 599 N.W.2d 253. In Wheeler, this Court concluded the rule did not apply even though the patient continued on medication prescribed by the doctor for eight years after her last personal contact with the doctor and had a subsequent routine examination by a nurse practitioner at the clinic. In Froysland, this Court held the rule did not apply where the anesthesiologist who allegedly had been negligent during a first surgery again participated in a second surgery more than two years later. The Court concluded that “continuous treatment anticipates something more than an isolated act of added attention by the physician more than two years after the initial conduct charged as injurious.” Froysland, 439 N.W.2d at 800.
[¶ 33] In this case, more than 9½ years passed from the last contact between Dr. Johnson and Monte and commencement of this action. There were no follow-up visits, monitoring of Monte’s condition, or other continuous treatment. In fact, their last contact, the May 1992 letter, clearly indicates that no further ongoing doctor-patient relationship was anticipated. The letter informed Monte that he had been cured and no further treatment or monitoring was necessary unless he gained weight. Dr. Johnson was no longer “attending and examining” Monte, and there was not “something more to be done.” Wheeler, 451 N.W.2d at 138. If anything, this case represents the antithesis of continuing treatment.
[¶ 34] We conclude that, if the continuous treatment rule were adopted, it would not apply in this case to toll the statutes of limitation or repose.
YI
[¶ 35] We have considered the remaining issues raised by Hoffner and find them to be without merit. The judgment is affirmed.
[¶ 36] DALE V. SANDSTROM, J., and ALLAN L. SCHMALENBERGER, District Judge, concur.
[920]*920[¶ 37] The Honorable ALLAN L. SCHMALENBERGER, District Judge, sitting in place of KAPSNER, J., disqualified.