Florida Supreme Court Rejects Agreement to Limit Medical Malpractice Damages
Last week, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a hospital’s agreement with patients to limit medical malpractice damages by 75% of what the law allows and to require arbitration was not enforceable. In Franks v. Bowers, et al., the justices ruled 5-2 that such agreements violate public policy by reducing the amount of non-economic damages (including pain and suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment, and loss of support) from the $1,000,000 allowed by Florida law to just $250,000. Additionally, the agreement violated public policy by forcing patients to waive their access to the courts and instead submit to arbitration.
The damages that injured parties and their families may recover against health care providers who have committed medical malpractice continues to be a significant source of contention among providers, lawmakers, insurance agencies, and attorneys. In May, the Florida Supreme Court found constitutional a state law limiting damages parents may recover for neurological injuries their babies sustained at birth to just $100,000. The law creates a no-fault system of compensation through a state-run association called the Neurological Injury Compensation Association (NICA). The court’s decision was based on its finding that the caps were rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in providing a compensation system for such injuries, but the court did not opine on whether or not there was a real crisis or overwhelming amount of medical malpractice claims. Previously enacted legislation in Florida already imposed strict limitations on the types of injuries for which claimants could recover for medical malpractice, including loss of limb and death.
Presently before the Florida Supreme Court is the McCall v. United States case, in which the appellants also challenge as unconstitutional Florida’s medical malpractice caps against practitioners of $500,000 (and $1,000,000 for wrongful death) under section 766.118, Florida Statutes. The appellants’ argument is based on the disparate treatment among claimants who may recover unlimited non-economic damages for non-medical negligence, such as an auto accident, and medical malpractice.