Estate of Michelle Evette McCall v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10705
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Death of Michelle McCall after prenatal Air Force care; Florida cap on noneconomic damages applies to FTCA case; district court capped noneconomic damages at $1M; Plaintiffs argued cap violated Equal Protection, Takings, and state constitutional provisions; district court declined to find nonpractitioner liability and treated hospital-related damages as within practitioner cap; court certified Florida Supreme Court questions on unresolved state-law issues; opinion affirms cap as to federal challenges and certifies state-law questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the cap violate equal protection? | McCall argued under Fourteenth Amendment. | State asserted rational basis supporting cap. | Cap passes rational-basis review. |
| Is the cap a taking under federal or Florida law? | Cap constitutes a taking requiring compensation. | Cap does not deprive vested rights; no taking. | No taking under federal or Florida constitutions. |
| Did the court properly classify hospital staff as practitioners? | Hospital could be nonpractitioner for higher cap. | Statute includes vicarious liability as practitioner; hospital falls within cap. | Hospital treated as practitioner; no $1.5M/$2M recovery. |
| Should the state-law claims be resolved by Florida Supreme Court? | Florida law unsettled; needs state interpretation. | Federal court should decide if possible. | Court certifies four Florida constitutional questions to Florida Supreme Court. |
| Does the cap violate other Florida constitutional provisions (jury, access to courts, separation of powers)? | Cap implicated rights to jury, access, and separation of powers. | Claims unsettled under Florida law. | Questions certified to Florida Supreme Court; merits reserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beach Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (rational basis review for economic regulation)
- Proudfoot Consulting Co. v. Gordon, 576 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard of review in appellate analysis)
- United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499 (1945) (takings involves power to set compensation; not all losses are takings)
- New York Cent. R.R. v. White, 243 U.S. 188 (1917) (vested rights concepts and changes in law)
- Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U.S. 314 (1981) (rational basis scrutiny for non-suspect classifications)
- Union Planters Bank, N.A. v. New York, 436 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2006) (certification of state-law questions when controlling)