Estate of Michelle Evette McCall v. United States
2014 WL 959180, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 104, 134 So. 3d 894 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statutory cap on noneconomic damages in wrongful death medical malpractice actions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Florida Constitution because it arbitrarily discriminates against multiple claimants and lacks a rational relationship to the stated governmental purpose of alleviating a medical malpractice crisis.
Facts:
- In June 2005, Michelle McCall received prenatal medical care at a United States Air Force clinic as an Air Force dependent.
- On February 21, 2006, test results revealed Ms. McCall was suffering from severe preeclampsia, requiring immediate labor induction.
- Air Force family practice doctors treated Ms. McCall at Fort Walton Beach Medical Center and induced labor, but did not call other obstetricians for immediate assistance when her contractions slowed.
- On February 23, 2006, at 1:25 a.m., Ms. McCall delivered a healthy baby boy but experienced significant blood loss.
- Following delivery, medical personnel, including an Air Force nurse anesthetist, failed to notify doctors or take action regarding Ms. McCall's rapidly dropping and dangerously low blood pressure.
- Ms. McCall went into shock and cardiac arrest due to severe blood loss and was removed from life support on February 27, 2006, never regaining consciousness.
- Michelle McCall was survived by her son and her parents, all of whom sustained legally cognizable noneconomic damages due to her death.
Procedural Posture:
- The Estate of Michelle McCall, Ms. McCall's parents, and the father of Ms. McCall's son (Petitioners) filed an action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
- The district court found the United States liable for Ms. McCall's death, awarded $980,462.40 in economic damages, and found $2 million in noneconomic damages, but applied Florida's statutory cap (Section 766.118(2)) to limit the noneconomic damages recovery to $1 million.
- The district court denied the Petitioners' motion challenging the constitutionality of Florida's cap under both the Florida and United States Constitutions.
- The Petitioners appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (appellant).
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the application of the statutory cap, holding it did not violate the Takings Clause of the Florida Constitution or the Equal Protection Clause or Takings Clause of the United States Constitution.
- The Eleventh Circuit then granted the Petitioners' motion to certify four questions regarding the remaining challenges to the statutory cap under the Florida Constitution to the Florida Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the statutory cap on wrongful death noneconomic damages, Fla. Stat. § 766.118, violate the right to equal protection under Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, J.
Yes, the statutory cap on wrongful death noneconomic damages provided in section 766.118, Florida Statutes, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Florida Constitution. The cap fails under the rational basis test because it imposes unfair and illogical burdens on injured parties when medical negligence gives rise to multiple claimants, effectively reducing compensation solely based on the number of survivors. For example, if Ms. McCall had only been survived by her son, he would have recovered his full $500,000 in noneconomic damages; however, because her parents also suffered losses, his recovery was arbitrarily reduced to half. This creates an inherently discriminatory action that does not bear a rational relationship to the Legislature's stated goal of alleviating a medical malpractice crisis, as previously discussed in St. Mary’s Hospital, Inc. v. Phillipe. Furthermore, the legislative assertion of a medical malpractice crisis in Florida in 2003, which supposedly justified the cap, is not fully supported by available data, which shows increasing physician numbers, a small percentage of large jury verdicts compared to settlements, and that insurance premium fluctuations may be due to underwriting cycles rather than excessive jury awards. Even if a crisis did exist, there is no direct correlation between damage caps and reduced malpractice premiums, and the statute contained no mandate for insurers to pass savings to physicians; the relevant provision for a 'presumed factor' for rate reduction was later repealed as 'obsolete'. Finally, current data demonstrates that any purported crisis has subsided, with increased physician numbers, decreased malpractice filings, and increased profitability for malpractice insurers, rendering any past justification for the cap arbitrary and irrational. The Court finds it unnecessary to answer the remaining certified questions because wrongful death actions did not exist at common law or involve recovery for noneconomic damages prior to 1972, making access to courts and jury trial challenges inapposite for this specific case.
Concurring - Pariente, J.
Yes, the statutory cap on wrongful death noneconomic damages provided by the medical malpractice statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Florida Constitution. I agree with the plurality that the arbitrary reduction of survivors' noneconomic damages in wrongful death cases based on the number of survivors lacks a rational relationship to the goal of reducing medical malpractice premiums. This position is supported by St. Mary’s Hospital, Inc. v. Phillipe, which held that aggregate caps without regard to the number of claimants violate equal protection. I also concur with the plurality’s observation that the absence of a mechanism to ensure insurance companies pass savings to doctors, coupled with the repeal of the 'presumed factor' provision, undermines any rational link between the cap and its stated purpose. Furthermore, even if a crisis existed at the time of enactment, conditions change, and there is no evidence of a continuing medical malpractice crisis to justify the ongoing arbitrary reduction of damages without a commensurate benefit. However, I respectfully disagree with the plurality's extensive independent evaluation and reweighing of legislative findings and data when applying the rational basis test. Our precedent, specifically Univ. of Miami v. Echarte, requires deference to legislative factual and policy findings unless 'clearly erroneous,' and there is no precedent for such an expansive judicial inquiry under a rational basis analysis, as the cases cited by the plurality involved strict scrutiny or distinguishable contexts. Despite this divergence in analytical approach, the ultimate conclusion that the cap is unconstitutional as applied to wrongful death actions is correct.
Dissenting - Polston, C.J.
No, the statutory cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases involving death does not violate Florida’s constitutional guarantee of equal protection, nor the access to courts, jury trial, and separation of powers provisions. The plurality disregards the proper rational basis standard and the Legislature’s policy role. The Legislature’s policy choice to enact a $1 million cap on noneconomic damages is rationally related to the legitimate state interests of decreasing medical malpractice insurance rates and increasing the affordability and availability of health care in Florida. The Eleventh Circuit, applying the rational basis test, already concluded that the cap had a rational relationship to these ends. The legislative findings of a 'medical malpractice insurance crisis' were based on extensive reports and testimony and are entitled to deference; it is not the judiciary’s role to reweigh evidence or conduct a de novo review of legislative facts. Under the rational basis test, a statute only needs a conceivable factual predicate, not unequivocal evidence, and the existence of distinctions (like those between single and multiple claimants or severely and moderately injured individuals) does not automatically violate equal protection, as this Court has upheld similar caps and classifications in Echarte and Mizrahi. The cap on damages also satisfies the 'access to courts' test under Kluger v. White by addressing an 'overpowering public necessity' (the medical malpractice crisis) and demonstrating 'no alternative method' without the cap, as thoroughly documented by legislative and task force findings. The right to a jury trial is not implicated because the right to recover noneconomic damages for wrongful death did not exist in 1845 when Florida's first constitution became effective. Finally, the cap does not violate 'separation of powers' because it establishes a substantive limit on damages generally, not a case-by-case remittitur, thus falling within the Legislature’s authority to enact substantive law.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant reassertion of judicial oversight over legislative 'tort reform' measures, particularly those involving damage caps. It demonstrates that courts, even under the deferential rational basis test, will scrutinize the factual premises underlying legislation and will not blindly accept legislative findings if contradicted by available data or if conditions have changed. The ruling reinforces that statutory classifications must maintain a logical and non-arbitrary relationship to their stated governmental purpose over time. This decision could invite future challenges to other long-standing damage caps or similar statutes based on claims of arbitrary distinctions or a lack of current empirical support for their original justifications.
