624 S.W.3d 481
Tenn.2021Background:
- In 2005 Cynthia Yebuah underwent a laparoscopic nephrectomy; a portion of a Gelport device was unintentionally left in her abdomen and discovered incidentally in 2013 during unrelated surgery and removed.
- Mrs. Yebuah sued for noneconomic damages (pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment); she did not claim permanent physical injury. Her husband Eric sued for loss of consortium (derivative claim).
- A jury awarded Mrs. Yebuah $4,000,000 (pain and suffering + loss of enjoyment) and Mr. Yebuah $500,000 for loss of consortium.
- The trial court first applied the statutory noneconomic-damages cap (§ 29-39-102) as a single $750,000 aggregate cap, then amended its judgment to apply the cap separately to each plaintiff (totaling $1,250,000); the Court of Appeals affirmed the separate-cap approach.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to decide whether § 29-39-102’s noneconomic-damages cap applies separately to a spouse’s loss-of-consortium claim or whether it creates a single aggregate cap including derivative consortium claims.
- The Supreme Court held the statute creates a single aggregate cap of $750,000 for noneconomic damages, inclusive of the injured spouse’s and the spouse’s derivative loss-of-consortium awards, and reduced the total judgment to $750,000.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 29-39-102’s $750,000 noneconomic-damages cap applies per plaintiff (allowing separate caps for injured spouse and spouse with loss of consortium) | Yebuah: the phrase “each injured plaintiff” means a per-plaintiff cap; loss-of-consortium plaintiff should get a separate $750,000 cap | Center: subsection (e) and “in the aggregate” show a single $750,000 cap covering injured plaintiff and derivative spouse claims | Court: statutory text and use of “each injured plaintiff” and “in the aggregate” show one $750,000 aggregate cap that includes derivative consortium claims; reverse Court of Appeals and reduce recovery to $750,000 |
| Constitutional challenge to the cap (due process, takings, right to jury, separation of powers, equal protection) | Yebuah: cap unconstitutional (raised post-judgment/body of brief) | Center & intervening AG: challenges were waived or foreclosed by McClay; statute constitutional | Court: most constitutional claims were waived or resolved by McClay; issues not developed were deemed waived; McClay controls several constitutional questions |
Key Cases Cited
- McClay v. Airport Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 596 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2020) (recent Tennessee decision addressing constitutionality and scope of the noneconomic-damages cap)
- Tuggle v. Allright Parking Sys., Inc., 922 S.W.2d 105 (Tenn. 1996) (loss of consortium is a derivative, separate claim dependent on injured spouse’s tort)
- Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (statutory interpretation principles; avoid absurd or superfluous readings)
- Ki v. State, 78 S.W.3d 876 (Tenn. 2002) (recognizes distinction between injured spouse and non-injured spouse claims)
- Hunley v. Silver Furniture Mfg. Co., 38 S.W.3d 555 (Tenn. 2001) (characterizes loss of consortium as a separate claim)
- Oaks v. Connors, 660 A.2d 423 (Md. 1995) (interpreting similar Maryland noneconomic-damages statute to include loss of consortium within a single cap)