By TODD RICHMOND Associated Press JULY 5, 2017 — 11:40AM
(AP) MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin's cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases is unconstitutional because it puts severely injured patients at a disadvantage, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The 1st District Court of Appeals' decision clears the way for unlimited compensation for pain, emotional anguish and loss of enjoyment or reputation.
The ruling stems from a case involving Ascaris Mayo. According to court documents, doctors didn't tell her she was suffering from a septic infection and as a result she fell into a coma and had to have all four of her limbs amputated after gangrene set in.
Mayo and her husband sued the doctors and the state malpractice compensation fund, an account doctors pay into to cover malpractice awards. A jury awarded them $25.3 million in damages, including $15 million in noneconomic damages and $1.5 million for her husband's loss of companionship.
Lawyers for the compensation fund moved to reduce the noneconomic damages award to $750,000, the maximum compensation for such damages allowed under state statutes. The Mayos countered that the cap is unconstitutional.
A Milwaukee County judge sided with the Mayos, finding the cap was unconstitutional as applied in their case. The appeals court went further, ruling the cap is unconstitutional on its face. The court found the cap allows full awards for less severely injured patients but results in reduced awards for the catastrophically injured, amounting to an equal protection violation.
The court went on to say the cap doesn't achieve any of the Legislature's stated goals in adopting it.
Lawmakers included language with the cap that said it was designed to encourage doctors to practice in Wisconsin, contain health care costs by discouraging "defensive medicine" and providing certainty in damage awards as well as protect the solvency of the state compensation fund.
The number of doctors participating in the fund has grown every year and there's no data indicating a cap has any effect on physician retention anywhere, the court said. Doctors don't face any personal liability thanks to the state fund, which would appear to eliminate the need for defensive medicine. As for the fund's solvency, claims against it have decreased since 2005 and as of 2014 the fund's assets stood at about $1.2 billion, the court said.
"We are left with literally no rational factual basis in the record before us which supports the legislature's determination that the $750,000 limitation on noneconomic damages is necessary or appropriate to promote any of the stated legislative objectives," the court's opinion said.
Attorneys for the fund and the doctors in the Mayo case didn't immediately respond to email messages seeking comment Wednesday morning.
The American Medical Association, the Wisconsin Medical Society and the Wisconsin Hospital Association filed a brief in the case urging the appeals court to maintain the cap, saying upsetting the Legislature's policy choice will hurt physician recruitment and in turn impair health care in the state.
The WHA issued a statement Wednesday saying the group disagrees with the ruling, saying the cap has served the state well. The group said it anticipates the case will go the state Supreme Court.
The Wisconsin Medical Society also issued a statement echoing the WHA's concerns, saying the decision "invalidates a key component of Wisconsin's comprehensive medical liability system."
DISCLAIMER of Liability. IN NO EVENT SHALL OUR PR COMPANY BE LIABLE OR RESPONSIBLE TO YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS OR LOST OPPORTUNITIES, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES IN ADVANCE AND REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION UPON WHICH ANY SUCH CLAIM IS BASED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY CLAIM ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OF THE CONTENT, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHS, AND VIDEOS, OR OF THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR LEGALITY OF ANY STATEMENT MADE IN OR OMITTED FROM ANY advertisement, sponsorship, endorsement, testimonial, opinion, or other product-related or service-related statement or review appearing in the Websites or in ANY post or article distributed via the Websites.