In upholding the state legislature’s limits on non-economic damages last week, the Missouri Supreme Court handed tort reform advocates a victory.
The state’s highest court decided in Maria Ordinola Velazquez v. University Physician Associates and the State of Missouri that it is not unconstitutional to cap non-economic damages in litigation involving medical services, according to media reports.
“It's one side of a coin and as somebody that does both plaintiff work and defense work, I've been on both ends,” said Timothy Intessimone, a Joplin attorney. “For plaintiffs, it's a little disheartening. From a medical provider or medical facility standpoint, it does help prevent this cycle that Americans have gotten into where they are at the hospital and something minor may happen and they're under the impression they are entitled to this amount of money which in turn leads to more cases in court and more defense costs on their end.”
As previously reported in the St. Louis Record, the original complaint challenged the constitutionality of the medical liability statute and its noneconomic damages limits, which are capped at $400,000 for non-catastrophic and $700,000 for catastrophic injuries per the law enacted in 2015.
“There are other damages that remain untapped,” Intessimone told the St. Louis Record. “Capping non-economic damages is ancillary. The ruling does not say that you can’t recover for the actual compensatory type of damages that you have. Whether or not that amount is fair, if you look at other states around us that have enacted these different caps, we're not far off from those other caps nationally.”
In the case decided by the Missouri Supreme Court, Velazquez sued University Physician Associates and the State of Missouri, alleging medical negligence related to a cesarean section and post-procedure care.
“The Missouri Supreme Court decision may have a chilling effect on some litigation but I think that the majority of claims that are coming through that are appropriate are of the plaintiff looking to be made whole whatever that might be and include,” Intessimone said. “The damages really are there to almost sanction or civilly punish bad actors and without them, are medical companies as worried about being held responsible and sanctioned for a greater amount versus the competing interest of people using the court as a way of professionally litigating to make money?”
The Missouri State Medical Association (MSMA) filed an amicus brief arguing that if non-economic damages were not limited, the cost of unlimited pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice cases would eventually be born by the consumer and passed on in higher premium costs, which would, in turn, result in less market competition.
“Their argument is it does help to strike a balance within the related field that hopefully with the intent of helping out society as a whole, not just the medical entities or the possible tortfeasors but really just the general population, is I think where the Missouri Supreme Court is coming from, why we continue to see this happen across the nation and why we continue to see caps upheld," Intessimone added.