Missouri’s Cap on Noneconomic Damages Heads to State’s Top Court
• Damages cap previously held unconstitutional in common-law case
• But lawmakers made malpractice statutory cause of action in 2015
By Mary Anne Pazanowski | February 17, 2021 9:34AM ET
The constitutionality of a Missouri law limiting the amount of damages plaintiffs can recover in medical malpractice cases for injuries like pain and suffering must be determined by the state’s top court because it’s a substantial question with no clear answer, a Missouri appeals court said.
The Missouri Supreme Court previously held a similar cap invalid under a state constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to have juries determine damages in actions at common law, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District said.
But the state legislature repealed the common-law medical malpractice cause of action in 2015 and replaced it with a statutory cause of action against health-care providers. The state supreme court has said the legislature may limit damages recoverable for statutory causes of action, like wrongful death.
The present case falls in a gray area, the appeals court said Tuesday. It raises the question of whether lawmakers may constitutionally limit the damages recoverable on a cause of action that existed at common law, but was replaced by a statutory cause of action.
“The legal effect of the legislature’s rechristening of a common-law cause of action as ‘statutory’ has not previously been decided by the Supreme Court,” the appeals court said. Transfer to the state’s top court is required because this case involves a contested issue on which there is room for “fair doubt and reasonable disagreement,” it said.
A jury awarded Maria del Carmen Ordinola Velazquez $30,000 in economic damages and $1,000,000 in noneconomic damages in a case alleging medical malpractice against providers accused of negligence during her child’s birth and her post-partum care. The trial court reduced the noneconomic damages to the $700,000 maximum allowed by law.
Ordinola Velazquez appealed the reduction in damages.
Judge Alok Ahuja wrote the opinion. Judges Thomas H. Newton and Thomas N. Chapman joined.
Horn Aylward & Bandy LLC represents the providers. Watson & Dameron LLP represents Ordinola Velazquez.
The case is Ordinola Velazquez v. Reeves, 2021 BL 53198, Mo. Ct. App. W.D., No. WD83485, 2/16/21.
To contact the reporter on this story: Mary Anne Pazanowski in Washington at [email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli at [email protected]; Patrick L. Gregory at [email protected]