Florida high court rejects medical malpractice caps

The 4-3 ruling also disputed the argument that a medical malpractice crisis exists in state.


  • By
  • | 12:00 p.m. June 9, 2017
  • | 5 Free Articles Remaining!
  • Law
  • Share

The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a law limiting pain-and-suffering damages in medical malpractice cases is unconstitutional, rejecting a controversial change that the Legislature and Gov. Jeb Bush approved in 2003.

Justices were sharply divided, with the four-member majority finding that the caps on “non-economic” damages violated equal-protection rights.

Also, the majority disputed that a malpractice insurance “crisis” exists — a justification that lawmakers used in approving the limits.

“We conclude that the caps on noneconomic damages … arbitrarily reduce damage awards for plaintiffs who suffer the most drastic injuries,” said the majority opinion shared by Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince.

“We further conclude that because there is no evidence of a continuing medical malpractice insurance crisis justifying the arbitrary and invidious discrimination between medical malpractice victims, there is no rational relationship between the personal injury noneconomic damage caps … and alleviating this purported crisis. Therefore, we hold that the caps on personal injury noneconomic damages … violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Florida Constitution.”

In a blistering dissent, Justice Ricky Polston, joined by justices Charles Canady and Alan Lawson, argued that the majority was overstepping its role.

“The majority just discards and ignores all of the Legislature’s work and factfinding,” Polston wrote. “But, under our constitutional system, it is the Legislature, not this (Supreme) Court, that is entitled to make laws as a matter of policy based upon the facts it finds.

“It is the Legislature’s task to decide whether a medical malpractice crisis exists, whether a medical malpractice crisis has abated, and whether the Florida statutes should be amended accordingly. For a majority of this (Supreme) Court to decide that a crisis no longer exists, if it ever existed, so it can essentially change a statute and policy it dislikes, improperly interjects the judiciary into a legislative function.”

The ruling, which stemmed from a Broward County case, dealt with malpractice lawsuits that allege personal injuries. It was effectively an extension of a 2014 Supreme Court ruling that found caps unconstitutional in wrongful-death malpractice cases.

 

×

Special Offer: $5 for 2 Months!

Your free article limit has been reached this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited digital access to our award-winning business news.