Florida Supreme Court tosses out medical malpractice cap on damages

[DonViejo]

Source: Tampa Bay Times

TALLAHASSEE — The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the centerpiece of the 2003 medical malpractice overhaul, blasting the Legislature for creating an "alleged medical malpractice crisis" and concluding, in a 5-2 ruling, that a cap on wrongful death noneconomic damages violates the U.S. and Florida constitutions.

The opinion, written by Justice R. Fred Lewis, concluded that legislators created a crisis to push through the caps on economic damages in medical liability lawsuits and said the cap "has the effect of saving a modest amount for many by imposing devastating costs on a few."

The resulting policy, Lewis wrote, is that the policy unconstitutionally discriminates against "those who are most grievously injured, those who sustain the greatest damage and loss, and multiple claimants."

Justices Peggy Quince, Barbara Pariente, E.C. Perry and Jorge Labarga concurred. Justices Ricky Polston and Charles Canady dissented.

Read more: http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/florida-supreme-court-tosses-out-medical-malpractice-cap-on-damages/2170030

[secondvariety]

1. Canady and Polston.

Two Charlie Crist appointees. Thanks, Charlie.

[okwmember]

2. Canady is especially noxious as he was one of the managers in the House

for Clinton's impeachment. He also likes to take credit for coining the term partial birth abortion.

[harun]

3. Nice! Some Democracy is still alive.

[RKP5637]

4. K&R! n/t

[Jasana]

5. A judge that knows what he's talking about. K&R nt.

[happyslug]

6. Here is the actual opinion, this is a 2-3-2 decision.

Last edited Fri Mar 14, 2014, 12:48 AM - Edit history (2)

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2014/sc11-1148.pdf

What I mean by a 2-3-2 decision, is the Chief Justice wrote one opinion, but was joined by one other justice. Three other justices wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the decision of the Chief Justice, but disagreeing with WHY the law violated the State of Florida Constitution and then you had the two dissenters.

This is a case involving a Mother while serving in the Air Force died well delivering her baby, and her death was caused by the malpractice of the medical team treating her. Thus this had been heard in Federal District Court then the 11th Circuit court of appeals which ruled that all of the rights claimed under the FEDERAL Constitution did NOT forbid the State from placing a cap on non-economic damages.

The 11th Circuit then sent a request to the Florida Supreme Court to rule on the issue of STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS that would make the cap unconstitutional under the State of Florida Constitution. In many states such "advisory" opinions are NOT permitted (For example in my Home State of Pennsylvania, if you want an advisory opinion it has to be requested from the Pennsylvania Attorney General). Florida is one of those states that PERMITS its Supreme Court to answer such requests from the Federal Courts, thus the 11th Circuit sent the case to the Florida Supreme Court to make a ruling on the STATE Constitutional issues.


Please note this is is 2-3-2 vote. The Decision written by the Chief Justice Lewis of the Florida Supreme Court was agreed to by one other judge, Justice J LABARGA. Justice Lewis basically says the cap violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Florida constitution because after reviewing the "facts" as found by the State Legislature, the Court says those "Facts" have no basis in reality and thus should be given no weight by the Florida Supreme Court, and that since this is a TOTAL CAP not in INDIVIDUAL Cap you can have disparate treatment and that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Florida Constitution. i.e. If you had two accidents, one in which one person is killed and total non-economic damages is $1 Million Dollars, and in the other accident you have FIVE victims, each with $1 million dollar in non-economic damages, the person in the first accident gets the whole $1 million dollars, while the five people in the second accident gets only $200,000, the $1 million dollar divided five ways. That is disparate treatment of the same type of event and that is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the Florida Constitution given one victim gets $1 and the rest get only $200,000 for the same type of accident.

Please note, one way to get around any Equal Protection Clause is to show justification for the difference in treatment. Thus the court's extensive review of what the State Legislature determined to be the facts when they passed the Cap. The State Legislature produced a report that the State Legislature thought justified this disparate treatment, but it was that finding of facts that the Chief Justice ended up attacking on the grounds it had no basis in reality.

Justices PARIENTE, QUINCE and PERRY, Wrote a separate opinion where they agree with the Chief Justice, but say his analysis of the facts on how the State Legislature passed the cap was in error. While they agreed with the Chief Justice that the finding of facts by the State Legislature is NOT binding on the Court, the Court has to give it more weight then the Chief Justice does. They agree in the result, that the Cap violates the Florida Constitution Equal Protection clause of the Florida Constitution in the words of Justice Pariente "Specifically, my primary disagreement is with the decision not to afford deference to the legislative findings in the absence of a showing that the findings were “clearly erroneous.” The concurring justice then find clear error on part of the State Legislature so they agree with the result.

The dissenting Justices, QUINCE and PERRY, basically says that since the 11th Circuit had already ruled that the FEDERAL EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE did not make this disparate treatment unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution, the State should rule the same for the FLORIDA Equal protection clause. i.e if it is constitutional under the Federal Constitution, it is constitutional under the Florida Constitution.