Trouble with images? View as a Web page.

Facebook Twitter More...
Polsinelli Shughart PC Health Care Law In the News
Attorneys

P. John Brady
Practice Area Chair

S. Jay Dobbs
Practice Area Vice-Chair

Collin B. Altieri
Mary Clare Bonaccorsi
Jason L. Bush
Lauren P. DeSantis-Then
Stephanie N. Gwillim
Thomas G. Kokoruda
Joshua M. McCaig
Christopher J. Molzen
M. Tony Patton
Blake H. Reeves
Daniel S. Reinberg
Anthony F. Rupp
Sandy J. Smith
Maureen M. Vogel
Keith C. Volpi


To learn more about our
Health Care Litigation practice, click here.


August 2012

 

Supreme Court of Missouri's Opinion in Watts v. Cox, et al.

Important Update: Changes to Cost of Medical Negligence Actions in MO

 

Until a few days ago in the state of Missouri, non-economic damages (pain and suffering) were capped at $350,000. That all changed recently when the Missouri Supreme Court declared the cap unconstitutional - changing the medical negligence landscape.

On July 31, 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court handed down its decision in Watts, et al. v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers, et al., No. SC91867. In this important ruling, the Court overturned the non-economic statutory damages cap in medical negligence actions in a 4-3 decision. The Missouri non-economic damage cap limits a plaintiff's recovery of damages for items such as pain and suffering. For many years, this type of recovery was capped by statute so there could be no recovery greater than $350,000.00. A copy of the Court's opinion is here and a brief overview of the decision follows.

Plaintiff filed this medical malpractice action alleging that her son was born with disabling brain injuries due to negligent healthcare services provided by Defendants - Cox Medical Center and its associated physicians. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff and awarded economic damages and $1.45 million in non-economic damages. The trial court entered a judgment reducing Plaintiff's non-economic damages to $350,000, as required by Missouri's statutory non-economic damages cap - § 538.210 RSMo.

The Supreme Court held that § 538.210 is unconstitutional to the extent it infringes on a jury's constitutionally-defined purpose of determining the amount of damages sustained by an injured party. In doing so, the Court overturned well-established, twenty-year-old precedent in Adams by and through Adams v. Children's Mercy Hosp., 832 S.W.2d 898, 907 (Mo.banc. 1992). The Court wrote that originally, before adoption of Missouri's state constitution, there was no common law limitation on a jury's ability to calculate damages. And when Article I, Section 22(a) of the Missouri Constitution was adopted almost 200 years ago, no limits existed on damage recovery. Consequently, any statutory scheme intended to limit a jury's ability to calculate damages, including a requirement that a trial court reduce them, violates a plaintiff's right to a trial by jury.

The language in the Missouri Constitution critical to the Court's holding was the "inviolate" right to a trial by jury in civil actions for personal injury. The Court emphasized that "the plaintiff has the full benefit of that right free from the reach of "hostile legislation" such as § 538.210 RSMo. The Court also noted that its decision finds support in the decisions of other states' courts - Washington, Oregon, Alabama, and Florida - that interpreted similar statutory cap language with respect to similar constitutional language.

The three dissenting judges were very critical of the majority for failing to respect stare decisis – i.e., the Court's "well-reasoned, long-standing precedent" in the Adams case. Like the majority, the dissenting justices identified state courts - Nebraska, Idaho, Ohio, and Maryland - that upheld similar statutory caps in the face of similar constitutional language.

Because of this new decision, non-economic damages are no longer statutorily capped in medical negligence matters in Missouri. But a recent opinion of the Court upheld statutory non-economic damages caps in wrongful death actions, which the Court reasoned are creatures of statute rather than common law. The immediate impact of the Watts decision likely will be to cause malpractice insurers and their insureds to be exposed to larger settlement demands, larger settlements, and larger actual verdicts.

For More Information

If you would like to discuss the impact of this Opinion in more detail, please contact:


  To learn more about our RSS feeds, click here. Click here to learn more about our RSS feeds. Click here to learn more about our RSS feeds.

Polsinelli Shughart | In the News

Headlines and Bylines from polsinelli.com


 

Polsinelli Shughart New York Adds Trio of Intellectual Property Litigators to Enhance Pharmaceutical Patent Practice

Does My Attorney Really Represent Me?

Health Care Attorney Ryan McAteer Joins Polsinelli Shughart in Los Angeles

Video: Impact of the Supreme Court Decision for Health Care Providers and Employers

Subscribe to: Polsinelli Shughart Health Reform and Related Policy News

   
 

Get more news from polsinelli.com.

   
Click here to learn more about our RSS feeds.

 

ABOUT POLSINELLI SHUGHART:

    Facebook
Connect with us on Facebook. Connect with us on Twitter. Connect with us on LinkedIn.

With more than 600 attorneys, Polsinelli Shughart is a national law firm and a recognized leader in the areas of health care, financial services, real estate, life sciences, energy and business litigation. Serving corporate, institutional and individual clients, the firm builds enduring relationships by creating value through our legal services – with passion, ingenuity and a sense of urgency. The firm can be found online at www.polsinelli.com. Polsinelli Shughart PC. In California, Polsinelli Shughart LLP.

 
       
         
         
Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Edwardsville, Jefferson City, Kansas City, Los Angeles, New York Overland Park, Phoenix, St. Joseph, St. Louis, Springfield, Topeka, Washington, D.C., Wilmington DE
 

To update your email preferences, please contact us at Interaction@polsinelli.com. To opt out of these communications, click the unsubscribe link below.

Polsinelli Shughart provides this material for informational purposes only. The material provided herein is general and is not intended to be legal advice. Nothing herein should be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances, possible changes to applicable laws, rules and regulations and other legal issues. Receipt of this material does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

Polsinelli Shughart is very proud of the results we obtain for our clients, but you should know that past results do not guarantee future results; that every case is different and must be judged on its own merits; and that the choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Polsinelli Shughart PC. In California, Polsinelli Shughart LLP. Polsinelli Shughart® is a registered trademark of Polsinelli Shughart PC.


Copyright © 2012 Polsinelli Shughart PC ®.

 
           
Polsinelli Shughart