Ingraham v. United States
808 F.2d 1075 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statutory limitation on damages is an affirmative defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) and is waived if not timely pleaded by the defendant before the trial court.
Facts:
- In 1977, the Texas Legislature enacted the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act, which placed a $500,000 cap on non-medical damages in medical malpractice lawsuits.
- On February 12, 1979, an Air Force surgeon negligently operated on Dwight L. Ingraham, damaging his spinal cord and causing severe, permanent injuries.
- In March 1979, an Air Force physician negligently managed Jocelyn Bonds's pregnancy and failed to perform a timely caesarian section.
- As a result of the physician's negligence, Jocelyn and David Bonds's infant daughter, Stephanie, suffered oxygen deprivation in utero, leading to extensive brain damage, spastic quadriparesis, cortical blindness, seizures, and mental retardation.
Procedural Posture:
- Dwight L. Ingraham sued the United States in federal district court under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- The trial court awarded Ingraham $1,264,000 in damages.
- After the judgment, the United States filed a notice of appeal and then a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), raising the Texas damages cap for the first time; the district court denied this motion.
- In a separate case, Jocelyn and David Bonds sued the United States in federal district court under the FTCA.
- The trial court awarded substantial damages to Stephanie and Jocelyn Bonds.
- The government filed a post-judgment motion to amend the judgment, which did not mention the damages cap. It later filed a 'Motion for Reconsideration' which did raise the cap; the district court denied this motion.
- The government appealed the final judgment in the Bonds case but did not appeal the denial of its 'Motion for Reconsideration'.
- The two cases were consolidated on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with the United States as the appellant and the families as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a state statutory limitation on medical malpractice damages an affirmative defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) that is waived if not timely pleaded?
Opinions:
Majority - Politz, Circuit Judge
Yes. A statutory limitation on damages is an affirmative defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) which is waived if not timely pleaded. The court determined that the damages cap falls under Rule 8(c)'s residuary clause for 'any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.' The central purpose of requiring affirmative defenses to be pleaded is to prevent unfair surprise. Had the government raised the defense in a timely manner, the plaintiffs would have had the opportunity to present more evidence on medical damages (which are not capped) and to challenge the constitutionality of the statute. The court characterized the defense as an 'avoidance' because it admits the underlying facts of the tort but seeks to prevent them from having their 'ordinary legal effect'—namely, a full recovery of damages. Because the government failed to raise the defense in its pleadings or at trial in either case, it waived the right to assert the statutory limit on damages.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that statutory damage caps are not self-executing but are affirmative defenses that defendants must actively raise or risk waiving. It serves as a significant procedural warning, particularly to defendants in federal court, that they cannot wait until after an adverse judgment to invoke a limitation on liability. The ruling reinforces the policy of avoiding unfair surprise at trial and emphasizes that trial strategy and evidence presentation depend on the legal issues framed in the pleadings. This precedent makes it difficult for defendants to 'lie behind a log' and ambush a plaintiff with a damages cap defense post-trial, thereby promoting fairness and comprehensive trial preparation.
Unlock the full brief for Ingraham v. United States