Dollars and Pain: Malpractice Damage Caps

Before this week, I thought a plaintiff could possibly earn an infinite amount of money from their case. However, I quickly realized this is not always true with my research this week. Reading the article, “Are Medical Malpractice Damages Caps Constitutional? An overview of state litigation,” I learned that noneconomic damages are often capped in medical malpractice cases. More specifically, I gained the understanding of the difference between economic and noneconomic damages as well as different ways the constitution is interpreted.

Economic damages consist of money awarded to a patient for covering their salary loss while noneconomic damages cover pain, suffering, or inconvenience. Between states, all generally agree that a patient should be fully compensated for their economic loss due to malpractice. However, states disagree on the limitation (or lack thereof) of money awarded for noneconomic loss. Some states argue that a cap on damages is a violation of the right to an open-court, trial by jury, and equal protection in the Constitution. While others believe the complete opposite. I thought these different interpretations were interesting because how can such a long, intricate, nuanced document have such different views? I also believe the whole concept of capping is unethical because I think it is synonymous with saying, “Your pain and suffering can only equal X amount of money,” even if a patient or jury thinks they deserve more.

In all, it is constitutional for states to cap noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. The most common cap is $250,000. However, even though it is federally constitutional, there have been some states who have banned damage caps all together.