Are medical malpractice damages caps constitutional? An overview of state litigation

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 515-534

  Kelly, Carly N ^a   Mello, Michelle M ^b  

^a McDermott Will & Emery   (United States)

^b HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27544489050     PISSN: 10731105     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2005.tb00515.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (116)

1. Anonymous, "2004 Rate Survey Indicates Rate Increases May Be Leveling but Triple-Digit Hikes Not Over," Medical Liability Monitor 29 (2004):1-5.
2. Berges v. Lambkin-Alexander (FL. Cir. Ct., no citation available); Boggs v. Camden-Clark Mem'l Hosp. (W. VA. S. Ct., no citation available); T. Albert, "Challenges in State Courts: New Tort Reforms Under Fire," amednews.com November 1, 2004 at 〈http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/11/ 01/prl11101.htm〈 (last visited June 21, 2005).
3. Judd ex rel. Montgomery v. Drezga, 103 P.3d 135 (Utah 2004).
4. Claims have also been brought alleging that caps legislation violates state constitutional provisions prohibiting "special laws," or laws that apply to only particular persons or things of a class. See, e.g., Lucas v. United States, 757 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. 1988). Such challenges have not been successful.
5. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 1D-15 (2004).
6. OR. REV. STAT. § 31.740 (2003).
7. D. M. Studdert and T. A. Brennan, "The Problems with Punitive Damages in Lawsuits Against Managed-Care Organizations," N. Engl. J. Med. 342 (2000): 280-284.
8. D. M. Studdert, Y. T. Yang and M. M. Mello, "Are Damages Caps Regressive? A Study of Malpractice Jury Verdicts in California," Health Affairs 23 (2004): 54-67.
9. See Studdert, Yang and Mello, supra note 8.
10. P. V. Niemeyer, "Awards for Pain and Suffering: The Irrational Centerpiece of Our Torts System," Virginia Law Review 90 (2004): 1401-1421, at 1403.
11. CAL. CIV. CODE § 3333.2 (2004).
12. A.C.A. § 16-55-208 (2004).
13. IDAHO CODE § 6-1603 (2004).
14. ALASKA STAT. § 09.17.010 (2004).
15. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 231, § 60H (2004) (allows the jury to waive a $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages if it determines that the patient's injuries are so severe that the cap would deprive the patient of just compensation); NEV. REV. STAT. § 41A.031 (2004) (allows the judge to waive a $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages in cases of gross malpractice or where the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that an award in excess of $350,000 is justified).
16. NEV. REV. STAT. § 41A.031 (2004).
17. BURNS IND. CODE ANN. § 34-18-14-3 (2004).
18. Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2003, H.R. 5.
19. Patients First Act of 2003, S. 11.
20. Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2004, H.R. 4280, 108th Cong. This bill was subsequently attached to H.R. 4279, which passed the House on May 12, 2004.
21. A bill to improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system, S. 354, 109th Cong.; A bill to improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system, H.R. 534, 109th Cong.
22. U.S. CONST. art. III § 2 restricts the federal courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) to appellate review of cases involving questions of federal law.
23. D. Schuman, "The Right to a Remedy," Temple Law Review 65 (1992): 1197-1227, at 1201.
24. MO. CONST. art. 1, § 14.
25. P. J. Chupkovich, Comment, "Statutory Caps: An Involuntary Contribution to the Medical Malpractice Insurance Crisis or a Reasonable Mechanism for Obtaining Affordable Health Care?" Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 9 (1993): 337-375, at 364.
26. See Evans v. State, 56 P.3d 1046, 1056 (Alaska 2002).
27. See Gourley v. Nebraska Methodist Health Sys., 663 N.W.2d 43, 74 (Neb. 2003); Adams v. Children's Mercy Hosp., 832 S.W.2d 898, 905 (Mo. 1992).
28. Lucas, 757 S.W.2d, at 715 (Culver, J., concurring).
29. Adams, 832 S.W.2d, at 905.
30. Waggoner v. Gibson, 647 F. Supp. 1102 (N.D. TX. 1986).
31. Lucas, 757 S.W.2d, at 690.
32. Id. at 696-699 (Gonzalez, J., dissenting).
33. Id. at 691.
34. TEX. CONST. art. 3, § 66.
35. TEX. CIV. PRACT. & REM. § 74.301.
36. Governor's Select Task Force on Healthcare Professional Liability Insurance, Report and Recommendations (Florida: Governor's Office, 2003): at 201-211.
37. FL. CONST. Art. I, § 21.
38. Kluger v. White, 281 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973); Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So.2d 9 (FL. 1974).
39. Tort Reform and Insurance Act of 1986, Laws of Florida ch. 86-160.
40. Smith v. Dep't of Insurance, 507 So.2d 1080 (FL. 1987).
41. FLA. STAT. § 766.207, 209 (2004).
42. University of Miami v. Echarte, 618 So. 2d 189 (FL. 1993).
43. U.S. CONST. amend. VII.
44. Minneapolis & St. Louis R.R. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916).
45. P. B. Weiss, Comment, "Reforming Tort Reform: Is there Substance to the Seventh Amendment?" Catholic University Law Review 38 (1989): 737-767, at 744-745.
46. Lakin v. Senco Prods., Inc., 987 P.2d 463, 475 (OR. 1999).
47. Etheridge v. Med. Ctr. Hosps., 376 S.E.2d 525, 529 (VA. 1989).
48. Id.
49. Judd, 103 P.3d, at 143.
50. Adams, 832 S.W.2d, at 907.
51. Kirkland v. Blain Co. Med. Ctr., 4 P.3d 1115, 1119-1120 (ID 2000).
52. Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Assoc., 592 So.2d 156, 164 (AL. 1992).
53. Id. at 164. The Alabama and Missouri constitutions both guarantee that the right of a jury trial shall remain "inviolate." See MO. CONST. art. I, § 22(a) and ALA. CONST. art. I, § 11.
54. Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 771 P.2d 711, 720-23 (Wash. 1989).
55. Id. at 723, quoted in Judd, 103 P.3d, at 146.
56. Kansas Malpractice Victims Coalition v. Bell, 757 P.2d 251, 260; but see Evans, 56 P.3d, at 1055 (Alaska Supreme Court holding that damages caps are not remittur, but a constitutionally-allowable limitation of a cause of action).
57. L. Hunter Dietz et al., "Availability of New Trial or Remittitur," 57B Am. Jur. 2d Negligence § 1093 (2004).
58. Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, 486 (1935).
59. Id.
60. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV § 1.
61. See Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) (holding demonstrates the Supreme Court's analysis of suspect classifications based on race); Harper v. Va. Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (holding invalidating a poll tax demonstrates a law that infringed on the fundamental right to vote).
62. M. A. Willis, Comment, "Limitation on Recovery of Damages in Medical Malpractice Cases: A Violation of Equal Protection?" University of Cincinnati Law Review 54 (1986): 1329-1351, at 1334.
63. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980).
64. Minn. v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456 (1991); but see U.S. Dept. of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 538 (1973) (striking down federal food stamp program rule that defined "household" as a group of related persons on grounds that it was "irrationally" related to the government's objective of promoting nutrition).
65. Sibley v. Bd. of Supervisors of LA. State Univ., 477 So.2d 1094, 1107 (LA. 1985).
66. Fein v. Permanente Med. Group, 695 P.2d 665, 682 (CA. 1985).
67. Id. at 670.
68. Id. at 671 (citing Medical Injury Comprehensive Reform Act, CAL. CIV. CODE § 3333.2).
69. Id. at 679.
70. Id. at 684.
71. Id. at 679.
72. Id. at 680.
73. Id. at 684.
74. Fein v. Permanente Med. Group, 474 U.S. 892 (1985).
75. M. D. Perison, Comment, "Equal Protection and Medical Malpractice Damage Caps: The Health Care Liability Reform and Quality of Care Improvement Act of 1991," Idaho Law Review 28 (1992): 397-419, at 412.
76. Judd, 103 P.3d, at 142.
77. Moore, 592 So.2d, at 156.
78. Id. at 169.
79. Id.
80. Carson v. Mauer, 424 A.2d 825, 830 (N.H. 1980).
81. Id. at 831.
82. Id. at 837.
83. D. M. Studdert, M. M. Mello and T. A. Brennan, "Medical Malpractice," N. Engl. J. Med. 350 (2004): 283-292.
84. Etheridge, 376 S.E.2d, at 530.
85. Id.
86. Scholz v. Metropolitan Pathologists, P.C., 851 P.2d 901, 907 (CO. 1993).
87. As with equal protection challenges, some state courts have opted to use a higher standard of review. See Knowles v. U.S., 544 N.W.2d 183, 189 (S.D. 1996) (holding that the damages caps must bear a "real and substantial relation" to the objective to be attained).
88. See Evans, 56 P.3d, at 1055 (holding that the substantive due process question was dispensed with once the court found that the damages caps did not violate equal protection guarantees).
89. Morris v. Savoy, 576 N.E.2d 764 (Ohio 1991).
90. Id. at 770.
91. See Bell, 757 P.2d, at 259; Lucas, 757 S.W.2d, at 690 (holding that statutory caps were unreasonable under the state open-courts provision of the Texas constitution because they failed to provide a substitute redress for the victim).
92. Fein, 474 U.S., at 892.
93. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59 (1978).
94. Id. at 88.
95. Fein, 474 U.S., at 895.
96. Arneson v. Olson, 270 N.W.2d 125, 134-135 (N.D. 1978).
97. Lucas, 757 S.W.2d, at 690-691; Smith, 507 So.2d, at 1089-1090; Judd, 103 P.3d, at 138-140.
98. J. M. Scherlinck, Note, "Medical Malpractice, Tort Reform, and the Separation of Powers Doctrine in Michigan," Wayne Law Review 44 (1998): 313-341, at 327.
99. Judd, 103 P.3d, at 145.
100. Best v. Taylor Mach. Works, Inc., 689 N.E.2d 1057, 1078-1080 (Ill. 1997).
101. Scherlinck, supra note 98, at 340.
102. For example, see Kirkland, 4 P.3d, at 1121 (holding that a noneconomic damages cap did not violate separation of powers because the Idaho constitution allows the legislature to "modify or abolish common law causes of action"); Pulliam v. Coastal Emergency Servs. of Richmond, Inc., 509 S.E.2d 307, 319 (VA. 1999) (holding that a medical malpractice damages cap did not violate separation of powers, because the legislature "has the power to provide, modify, or repeal a remedy"); Verba v. Ghaphery, 552 S.E.2d 406, 411 (W.Va. 2001) (holding that a medical malpractice damages cap did not violate separation of powers because the legislature has the power to limit common law remedies).
103. Judd, 103 P.3d, at 145, quoting Ritchie v. Richards, 47 P. 670, 675 (UT. 1896) (Barten, J., concurring).
104. V. Schwartz, M. A. Behrens, and M. G. Parham, "Fostering Mutual Respect and Cooperation Between State Courts and State Legislatures: A Sound Alternative to a Tort Tug of War," West Virginia Law Review 103 (2000): 1-18, at 10-12.
105. Ohio Acad. of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 715 N.E.2d 1062, 1076-1079 (Ohio 1999).
106. Robinson v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., 186 WV. 720, 730 (WV. 1991).
107. Kluger, 281 So.2d, at 4.
108. HEALTH Act of 2003, § 11(c); HEALTH Act of 2004, § 1011(c).
109. H. Hershkoff, "State Courts and the 'Passive Virtues': Rethinking the Judicial Function," Harvard Law Review 114 (2001): 1833-1922, at 1888.
110. H. Hershkoff, "State Courts and the 'Passive Virtues': Rethinking the Judicial Function," Harvard Law Review 114 (2001): 1833-1922, Id.
111. H. Hershkoff, "Postive Rights and State Constitutions: The Limits of Federal Rationality Review," Harvard Law Review 112 (1999): 1131-1195, at 1162-1163.
112. Id. at 1168.
113. Id. at 1181.
114. Id. at 1182.
115. J. F. Blumstein, "A Perspective on Federalism and Medical Malpractice," Yale Journal on Regulation 14 (1996): 411-427, at 425-426.
116. Studdert, Mello and Brennan, supra note 83; Studdert, Yang and Mello, supra note 8.