568 S.W.3d 396
Mo.2019Background
- In 2011–2013 Emilee Williams developed neurological symptoms later diagnosed as Wilson’s disease; she sued Mercy Clinic alleging Dr. Pilapil negligently failed to diagnose/treat the disease.
- A jury awarded Williams $28,911,000 (including $21 million for future medical care); the jury expressed future damages in present value as required by Mo. Rev. Stat. §538.215.
- The trial court allocated $10 million of the $21 million future-medical award to periodic payments at the statutory Treasury-bill-based rate (~1.2%) under §538.220.2; the judgment initially included post-judgment interest.
- Mercy sought amendment to require periodic payments and later (untimely) moved to strike post-judgment interest; the court granted periodic payments for $10M at 1.2% and later struck post-judgment interest.
- Williams appealed raising as-applied due-process challenge to §538.220.2 (arguing the statutory low interest rate, applied after the jury already discounted to present value, deprives her of the award’s full value); Mercy cross-appealed several rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of applying §538.220.2 interest after jury discounted future damages | Williams: applying statutory low interest to periodic payments after jury used higher rates to discount to present value effectively double-discounts her award and violates due process | Mercy: statute is constitutional and may be applied to periodic payments; court may allocate future medical damages to periodic payments | Court: §538.220.2 unconstitutional as applied—applying statutory rate after jury discounted to present value deprived Williams of full value and violated due process; remand to craft payment schedule preserving jury’s award value |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by not assigning all future medical damages to periodic payments | Williams: (implicit) court may limit periodic payments when necessary to effectuate full award | Mercy: court should have assigned all $21M to periodic payments absent specific evidence requiring lump sum | Court: affirmed discretion under Watts; no abuse of discretion in allocating only $10M to periodic payments given evidentiary conflict about funding life-care needs at statutory rate |
| Treatment of attorney’s fees under §538.220.4 | Williams: court should have expressly subtracted/allocated attorney’s fees before periodic-payment determination | Mercy: attorney-fee treatment not specified | Court: no error—statute presumes fees paid when judgment is final and leaves method to plaintiff and counsel; lump sum available to cover fees here |
| Amendment to strike post-judgment interest (timeliness) | Williams: April 27 motion to amend (after 30 days) was untimely; court lacked authority to strike post-judgment interest | Mercy: court had authority or could correct via plain-error rule | Court: Mercy’s motion was untimely; under Rules 75.01/81.05 and Pilot the court lacked authority to amend to remove post-judgment interest; reversal in that respect and remand to reinsert post-judgment interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Watts v. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctrs., 376 S.W.3d 633 (Mo. banc 2012) (interpreting §538.220.2 discretion and noting concerns about interest-rate interaction with present-value awards)
- State ex rel. Hawley v. Pilot Travel Ctrs., LLC, 558 S.W.3d 22 (Mo. banc 2018) (trial court’s post-30‑day authority limited to grounds raised by timely after-trial motions)
- Vincent by Vincent v. Johnson, 833 S.W.2d 859 (Mo. banc 1992) (purposes of periodic-payment statute and court discretion in payment scheduling)
- Doe v. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d 833 (Mo. banc 2006) (due-process analysis requires law to be rationally related to a legitimate state interest)
- Union Elec. Co. v. Pfarr, 375 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. 1964) (plain error can require correction where statutory error so clearly violates rights that it causes manifest injustice)