Jeffrey Beausay

Archive for the ‘Caps on Damages’ Category:

Damages Caps Upheld Again (Political Subdivisions)

The $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in RC 2744.05(C)(1) does not violate the right to a jury trial or the right to equal protection under the law. Oliver v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co. Ltd. Partnership, 123 Ohio St.3d 278, 2009-Ohio-5030. The court followed its decision in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948. (See Post on Arbino).

The Constitution. Article I Section 5 of the Ohio Constitution, and the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution protect the right to a jury in civil cases.

Right to trial by jury. The rationale is that juries decide facts, and the limitation on damages is a question of law. Thus, the statute does not infringe upon the jury’s role as fact-finder.

Equal Protection. A statute is valid if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. The court held: “The state has a valid interest in preserving the financial soundness of its political subdivisions.” Also, since the State has the authority to prohibit all tort actions against political subdivisions, it is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable for the State to limit the amount that can be recovered against a political subdivision.

Date of Decision: 1 Oct 2009

Majority: Moyer; Lundberg-Stratton; O’Connor; Lanzinger; Cupp

Dissent: O’Donnell; Pfeifer

Jeffrey Beausay

Tags: Caps on Damages, Damages, Political Subdivisions

Caps on Damages: Medical Malpractice

Under Ohio law, in medical malpractice cases (i.e., not personal injury or wrongful death cases), the amount one can recover for non-economic losses caused by a negligent physician or other healthcare provider is capped (limited). See RC 2323.43. The caps are as follows:

A. Catastrophic Injuries: $500,000/plaintiff/$1Million/Occurrence

“Catastrophic” Defined: A permanent and substantial physical deformity, loss of use of a limb, or loss of a bodily organ system, or a permanent physical functional injury that permanently prevents the injured person from being able to independently care for self and perform life sustaining activities.

B. Non-Catastrophic Injuries: The greater of $250,000 or 3 times the plaintiff’s economic losses (up to $350,000/plaintiff) or a maximum of $500,000 per occurrence.

RC 2323.43 went into effect on April 11, 2003.

Comments:

First, there is no cap on economic damages, such as medical expenses, loss of income, future medical care, etc. The caps only apply to non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, etc.

The Ohio Supreme Court will need to determine if these caps comply with the Ohio Constitution. The Court already has upheld the personal injury caps (See Post on PI caps), but the PI caps do not apply to ”catastrophic injuries” as defined in the statute; in medical malpractice cases, on the other hand, the caps are higher than those imposed in non-catastrophic cases.

TJB’s Opinion

I’m sure you would like to know how I feel about damages caps. I have no problem imposing damages caps, so long as the caps are fair and reasonable. For example, I feel that the personal injury damages caps for non-catastrophic injuries (see RC 2315.18) are reasonable; they protect a defendant against an outlandish jury verdict for non-catastrophic injuries. But there must be an exception for severe injuries, and the cap needs to be substantial in such cases (i.e. much more than the RC 2315.18 or 2323.43 caps). If you were seriously injured and had a permanent disability, these caps are not nearly sufficient to cover the losses that might accompany such injuries. That’s my opinion.

Jeff Beausay

Tags: Caps on Damages, Medical Malpractice

Personal Injury Damages Caps Upheld by Ohio Supreme Court

In 2005, the Ohio General Assembly passed several “tort reform” measures, the most controversial being the limits on the amount a jury can award in personal injury and product liability cases. See RC 2315.18. Under the 2005 rules, a plaintiff cannot recover more than the greater of (1)$250,000 or (2) three times the economic damages up to a maximum of $350,000, or $500,000 per single occurrence. These limits do not apply to catastrophic injuries, defined as ”permanent and substantial physical deformity, loss of use of a limb, or loss of a bodily organ system,” or “permanent physical functional injury that permanently prevents the injured person from being able to independently care for self and perform life-sustaining activities.” These changes went into effect on April 7, 2005.

This statute was challenged on constitutional grounds. In Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948, the Ohio Supreme Court held that this and other tort reform provisions do not violate the Ohio Constitution.

TJB’s BS:

Let’s not overreact. These limits DO NOT apply to medical malpractice cases, wrongful death cases, or cases involving catastrophic injuries (as defined in the statute). It would be unusual for a jury to award noneconomic damages (e.g. pain and suffering) in excess of $250,000 if the injury is not catastrophic. So, in reality, this statute will not affect that many cases.

Also, bear in mind, the Ohio Supreme Court, as presently constituted, is a “strict constructionist” court, meaning that the Justices tend to uphold statutes passed by the General Assembly (Congress), unless the statute clearly violates the Ohio Constitution. Therefore, if the people of Ohio strongly disagree with these tort reform measures, they need to elect different politicians who are more “plaintiff friendly.”

The more interesting constitutional question will arise in the medical malpractice context, where the damages caps have no exception for catastrophic injuries.

Jeffrey Beausay, Trial Lawyer

Tags: Caps on Damages, Damages, Personal Injury