Friday, May 27, 2011

Florida's Medical Malpractice Limits Do Not Violate U.S. Constitution

In Estate of Michelle Evette McCall v. USA (09-16375), the Eleventh Circuit released a published opinion addressing the constitutionality of the limits in Florida on noneconomic medical malpractice damages. The Court held the limit on noneconomic damages is constitutional under the United States Constitution and the takings clause of the Florida Constitution but certified other issues to be determined by the Florida Supreme Court. The court stated:
The central question presented in this appeal is whether Florida’s cap on noneconomic medical malpractice damages, Fla. Stat. § 766.118, violates the Florida or United States Constitutions. The Estate of Michelle McCall, Ms. McCall’s parents, and the father of Ms. McCall’s son (collectively “Plaintiffs”) also appeal the District Court’s application of that statutory cap. After thorough review and having had the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the District Court did not err in applying the cap. We also conclude that Florida’s statutory cap passes muster under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Takings Clause of Article X, § 6(a) of the Florida Constitution. Because no Florida Supreme Court decisions provide controlling guidance to resolve Plaintiffs’ other challenges to this cap on noneconomic medical malpractice damages under that state’s Constitution, we grant, in part, Plaintiffs’ motion to certify questions to the Florida Supreme Court.
*****
We certify the following questions to the Supreme Court of Florida:
  1. Does the statutory cap on noneconomic damages, Fla. Stat. § 766.118, violate the right to equal protection under Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution?
  2.  Does the statutory cap on noneconomic damages, Fla. Stat. § 766.118, violate the right of access to the courts under Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution?
  3. Does the statutory cap on noneconomic damages, Fla. Stat. § 766.118, violate the right to trial by jury under Article I, Section 22 of the Florida Constitution?
  4. Does the statutory cap on noneconomic damages, Fla. Stat. § 766.118, violate the separation of powers guaranteed by Article II, Section 3 and Article V, Section 1 of the Florida Constitution?

VI.
We affirm the district court’s application of Florida’s statutory cap on noneconomic damages. We also conclude that the cap comports with the Equal Protection and Takings Clauses of the United States Constitution. We conclude that the statute does not constitute a taking in violation of the Takings Clause of the Florida Constitution, and we grant Plaintiff’s motion to certify questions regarding Plaintiffs’ remaining challenges to the cap under state constitutional law to the Florida Supreme Court.
*Disclaimer: GrayRobinson, P.A. was involved in the above-referenced action.

0 comments:

Post a Comment