Taylor v. United States
821 F.2d 1428, 8 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 674 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, state statutory caps on non-economic damages for professional negligence apply to the United States government when it acts as a healthcare provider. A health care provider's failure to ensure patient safety regarding medical equipment constitutes professional negligence, not ordinary negligence, making such claims subject to statutory damage limitations.
Facts:
- Ida Taylor's husband suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's Disease) and was completely dependent on a ventilator for oxygen.
- In July 1982, her husband was admitted to Letterman Army Hospital, a federal facility, for treatment of pneumonia.
- While hospitalized, he became disconnected from the ventilator.
- As a result of the subsequent oxygen deprivation, Taylor's husband suffered severe and irreparable brain damage.
- Ida Taylor was present at the hospital and witnessed her husband becoming disconnected from the ventilator and the subsequent efforts to revive him.
Procedural Posture:
- Ida Taylor sued the United States in federal district court under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
- The government stipulated to liability, and a bench trial was held solely on the issue of damages.
- The district court awarded Taylor $500,000 in non-economic damages ($400,000 for loss of consortium and $100,000 for negligent infliction of emotional distress).
- After the judgment, the government filed a motion to reduce the damages award to $250,000, citing California Civil Code § 3333.2.
- The district court denied the government's motion, ruling that the incident constituted ordinary negligence, not professional negligence, and therefore the statutory cap did not apply.
- The United States (appellant) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Ida Taylor as the appellee.
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 California Civil Code § 3333.2, which limits non-economic damages in actions based on professional negligence to $250,000, apply to a claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries resulting from a patient's disconnection from a ventilator in a federal hospital?
Opinions:
Majority - Beezer, Circuit Judge
Yes. California Civil Code § 3333.2 applies to this claim, limiting non-economic damages to $250,000. The court reasoned that under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the United States is to be treated 'in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.' A private California hospital would be subject to the § 3333.2 cap. The fact that a federal hospital is not state-licensed is due to the Supremacy Clause, not because it is not a healthcare provider; failing to apply the cap would improperly treat the government differently than a private entity. Furthermore, the incident constituted 'professional negligence' because a hospital has a professional duty to safeguard its patients. This duty extends to preventing unsafe conditions, such as the disconnection of vital medical equipment, regardless of whether the specific cause was a highly-skilled medical error or a simple accident. Finally, the government did not waive the protection of § 3333.2 by raising it post-judgment, as the statute is a limitation on damages, not an affirmative defense that must be pleaded in the initial answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that state-level tort reform measures, specifically damage caps on non-economic damages in malpractice cases, are fully incorporated against the U.S. government in FTCA claims. It significantly broadens the legal definition of 'professional negligence' to encompass not just errors in medical judgment or skill, but also general failures in patient safety and equipment management within a healthcare facility. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to circumvent malpractice damage caps by framing incidents as 'ordinary' negligence, thereby ensuring consistent liability rules for federal and private healthcare providers operating within the same state.
