Negligence : Wrongful Death – Non-Economic Damages – Statutory Cap

(1)Where the family of a woman who died during heart surgery challenged the application to their wrongful death case of the statutory cap on non-economic damages in light of recent case law, the cap does not violate the right to a jury trial, the separation of powers or equal protection, and the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Center did not impact the case since Watts involved a personal injury claim and applies only to causes of action in which the right to a jury trial attaches by common law.

(2)Where the family of a woman who died during heart surgery argued that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on the issue of aggravating circumstances, the judgment is affirmed because the plaintiffs did not show that the healthcare provider defendants acted with complete indifference for the woman’s safety.

(3)Where the defendants in a wrongful death case argued that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the plaintiff to question their expert witness about the availability of St. Louis doctors to testify as experts against other doctors, the questioning was relevant on the issue of bias, and a portion of a defendant’s videotaped deposition was properly admitted as relevant on the issue of credibility, and the plaintiffs provided substantial evidence for the jury to estimate future economic damages, so the judgment is affirmed over the defendant’s remaining challenge to a jury instruction not to consider insurance coverage.

Prior holdings control

Separate opinion by Fischer, J.; and Wilson, J.; “We concur with the result in the principal opinion but write separately to address Plaintiffs’ argument that Sanders v. Ahmed, 364 S.W.3d 195 (Mo. banc 2012), does not control in this case. For the reasons set forth below, Sanders controls, and we are constrained to vote accordingly….

“The holdings of Diehl and Scott that the constitutional jury trial right applies in all cases whether the claim arises under the common law or by statute – and the line drawn in Overbey, Sanders, Watts, and Lewellyn that the constitutional jury trial right prohibits the enforcement of statutory caps on amounts recoverable on a common law cause of action but is not offended by such caps on amounts recoverable under a statutory cause of action – are authoritative constructions of one of our most important constitutional rights. They have been applied faithfully by this Court and have engendered substantial reliance by the General Assembly and other stakeholders. Accordingly, these cases cannot be ignored or overruled without a substantial showing that they were incorrectly decided or that they reached a proper result on improper grounds. No such showing has been made here.”

Insurance ‘crisis’

Dissenting opinion by Teitelman, J.; “I dissent from the principal opinion. In Adams By and Through Adams v. Children’s Mercy Hosp., 832 S.W.2d 898 (Mo. banc 1992),this Court summarized the arguments supporting and refuting whether the legislature’s imposition of the damages cap in section 538.210, RSMo 1986, was rationally related to its intended purpose of alleviating the perceived malpractice insurance ‘crisis’ that occurred in Missouri in the early 1980s….

“A clear, cogent argument exists that this medical malpractice ‘crisis’ was manufactured and continues to be exacerbated today by a special interest group that persistently labels, for shock value, and characterizes some jurisdictions as ‘judicial hellholes.’ These characterizations and the underlying ‘support’ for these characterizations have been criticized roundly.

It should be noted our legislature took subsequent remedial measures in the 2015 session to amend section 538.210 to increase the noneconomic damages caps for personal injury and wrongful death, including an adjustment to account for inflation. 2015 Mo. Legis. Serv. S.B. 239 (West). Perhaps these subsequent remedial measures serve as recognition that the perceived ‘crisis’ never existed, or at least has abated.

“The foregoing argument could have been asserted to challenge section 538.210 under a rational basis test, but it was not raised here. I respectfully dissent.”

Judgment is affirmed.

Dodson v Ferrara (MLW No. 69072/Case No. SC95151 – 56 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Russell, J.; Breckenridge, C.J., and Stith, J., concur; Fischer and Wilson, JJ., concur in result in separate opinion filed; Draper, J., dissents in separate opinion filed; Teitelman, J., concurs in opinion of Draper, J.; Teitelman, J., dissents in separate opinion filed) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis County, Sherry, J. (Paul N. Venker and Lisa A. Larkin, St. Louis, for appellants) (Maurice B. Graham, Patrick J. Hagerty, Joan M. Lockwood and Kaitlin A. Bridges, St. Louis, and John G. Simon, for respondent).

Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)