Recent Legal Challenges to State Medical Liability Caps
Each year, there are a number of legal challenges and proposed changes to existing medical liability statutes. The AAO-HNS, working with other state and national medical societies, tracks and advocates for comprehensive medical liability reforms at the federal and state levels. One of the most contentious issues each year is caps on damages, particularly caps on non-economic damages often referred to as “pain and suffering” awards. Caps on damages are an essential element to comprehensive medical liability reform as they often provide stability to a tenuous legal environment. Nearly 30 states have enacted some form of a cap on damages in medical liability actions. However, the amount of the cap and the type of damages covered varies widely depending on the state. In addition to the legislative proposals introduced and debated each year on medical liability reform, there are also a number of legal challenges. In recent years, there have been at least 15 states where the courts upheld a cap on damages and at least 10 states that have overturned caps as unconstitutional. In 2012, there were major constitutional challenges to caps in Kansas and Missouri, where the decisions on medical liability caps were split. On October 5, 2012, the Kansas Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, upheld that a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages is constitutional in medical liability cases. This was the second time that the Kansas Supreme Court has upheld the cap. The Court found that the legislature’s decision to enact the cap was rationally related to a valid legislative purpose, and as such, was constitutional. The Court found that the intent of the cap was to ensure quality healthcare availability and to promote affordable liability insurance for healthcare professionals. These objectives were recognized by the Court as a legitimate state interest that promotes the general welfare of its citizens. This analysis was based on the fact that physicians, hospitals, and other healthcare professionals are required by law to carry liability insurance and participate in the Health Care Stabilization Fund, which together, provide a guaranteed source of recovery for patients injured through medical negligence. The Court considered this as a “quid pro quo,” wherein individuals give up the right to recover unlimited non-economic damages in return for an assured source of recovery.1 Prior to the decision in Kansas, the Missouri Supreme Court had struck down a state law that capped non-economic medical liability awards at $350,000. In a 4-3 decision, the Court ruled that caps on non-economic damages were unconstitutional because they deprive patients of their right to trial by jury, which includes the right to have a jury set damages.2 The caps were part of a tort reform package that passed the Missouri legislature in 2005. The Missouri Medical Association has expressed its disappointment in the decision and has indicated that restoring the caps will be a priority for the 2013 legislative session. Another notable legal challenge this year involved a total cap on damages. In March 2012, the Supreme Court of Louisiana upheld the state’s $500,000 limit on total medical liability damages by declaring the cap constitutional.3 If history repeats itself, additional legal challenges to caps on damages will likely arise in 2013. The AAO-HNS will continue to closely track such court challenges and medical liability reform proposals during the state legislative sessions. For more information, email AAO-HNS State Legislative Affairs at legstate@entnet.org. In addition, to receive timely updates on state, federal, or grassroots initiatives, AAO-HNS members are encouraged to join the ENT Advocacy Network—a free member benefit. To join, email govtaffairs@entnet.org. References Miller v. Johnson, No. 99,818, 2012 WL 4773559 (Kan. Oct. 5, 2012). Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers, 376 S.W.3d 633 (Mo. 2012). Oliver v. Magnolia Clinic, et al., 85 So3d 39 (La. 2012).
Each year, there are a number of legal challenges and proposed changes to existing medical liability statutes. The AAO-HNS, working with other state and national medical societies, tracks and advocates for comprehensive medical liability reforms at the federal and state levels. One of the most contentious issues each year is caps on damages, particularly caps on non-economic damages often referred to as “pain and suffering” awards.
Caps on damages are an essential element to comprehensive medical liability reform as they often provide stability to a tenuous legal environment. Nearly 30 states have enacted some form of a cap on damages in medical liability actions. However, the amount of the cap and the type of damages covered varies widely depending on the state.
In addition to the legislative proposals introduced and debated each year on medical liability reform, there are also a number of legal challenges. In recent years, there have been at least 15 states where the courts upheld a cap on damages and at least 10 states that have overturned caps as unconstitutional. In 2012, there were major constitutional challenges to caps in Kansas and Missouri, where the decisions on medical liability caps were split.
On October 5, 2012, the Kansas Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, upheld that a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages is constitutional in medical liability cases. This was the second time that the Kansas Supreme Court has upheld the cap. The Court found that the legislature’s decision to enact the cap was rationally related to a valid legislative purpose, and as such, was constitutional. The Court found that the intent of the cap was to ensure quality healthcare availability and to promote affordable liability insurance for healthcare professionals. These objectives were recognized by the Court as a legitimate state interest that promotes the general welfare of its citizens. This analysis was based on the fact that physicians, hospitals, and other healthcare professionals are required by law to carry liability insurance and participate in the Health Care Stabilization Fund, which together, provide a guaranteed source of recovery for patients injured through medical negligence. The Court considered this as a “quid pro quo,” wherein individuals give up the right to recover unlimited non-economic damages in return for an assured source of recovery.1
Prior to the decision in Kansas, the Missouri Supreme Court had struck down a state law that capped non-economic medical liability awards at $350,000. In a 4-3 decision, the Court ruled that caps on non-economic damages were unconstitutional because they deprive patients of their right to trial by jury, which includes the right to have a jury set damages.2 The caps were part of a tort reform package that passed the Missouri legislature in 2005. The Missouri Medical Association has expressed its disappointment in the decision and has indicated that restoring the caps will be a priority for the 2013 legislative session.
Another notable legal challenge this year involved a total cap on damages. In March 2012, the Supreme Court of Louisiana upheld the state’s $500,000 limit on total medical liability damages by declaring the cap constitutional.3
If history repeats itself, additional legal challenges to caps on damages will likely arise in 2013. The AAO-HNS will continue to closely track such court challenges and medical liability reform proposals during the state legislative sessions. For more information, email AAO-HNS State Legislative Affairs at legstate@entnet.org. In addition, to receive timely updates on state, federal, or grassroots initiatives, AAO-HNS members are encouraged to join the ENT Advocacy Network—a free member benefit. To join, email govtaffairs@entnet.org.
References
- Miller v. Johnson, No. 99,818, 2012 WL 4773559 (Kan. Oct. 5, 2012).
- Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers, 376 S.W.3d 633 (Mo. 2012).
- Oliver v. Magnolia Clinic, et al., 85 So3d 39 (La. 2012).