Estate of Michelle Evette McCall v. United States, 134 So. 3d 894

Background

Michelle McCall died from alleged medical negligence after childbirth; her estate, parents, and child sued the United States under the FTCA and obtained $2 million in noneconomic damages from the district court.
The district court applied Florida’s medical-malpractice wrongful-death noneconomic damages cap, § 766.118(2) (2005), reducing aggregate recovery to $1 million and proportionally cutting each survivor’s award.
Petitioners appealed; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on federal constitutional grounds but certified four questions about the Florida Constitution to the Florida Supreme Court.
The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether § 766.118’s wrongful-death noneconomic-damages cap violates Florida’s Equal Protection Clause (Art. I, § 2) and rephrased the certified question accordingly.
The Court held the cap unconstitutional under Florida’s Equal Protection Clause because (1) it arbitrarily discriminates against multiple claimants by reducing awards solely due to the number of survivors, and (2) it fails rational-basis review — the cap is not rationally related to the Legislature’s asserted purpose of alleviating a medical-malpractice insurance “crisis.”
The Court declined to answer the other certified questions (access to courts, jury trial, separation of powers) as advisory because the wrongful-death noneconomic-damages cause of action is statutory and the other questions either do not apply to pre-1968 rights or would require advisory opinions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 766.118’s wrongful-death noneconomic damages cap violates Florida’s Equal Protection Clause	McCall: cap arbitrarily reduces survivors’ full noneconomic recovery when multiple claimants exist and discriminates against the most grievously injured; no rational link to stated legislative goal	State: cap is rationally related to legitimate objective of reducing malpractice insurance costs and preserving access to care; Legislature relied on Task Force and hearings	Held: cap violates Equal Protection — it arbitrarily discriminates among similarly situated survivors and fails rational-basis review because evidence does not support the cap’s connection to the asserted insurance crisis
Whether access-to-courts clause is violated by the cap (Art. I, § 21)	McCall: cap restricts survivors’ remedies	State: cap is legitimate legislation addressing public necessity; provides part of broader reform	Not answered on merits — Court declined as advisory because wrongful-death noneconomic recovery post-dates 1968 and the question would require advisory opinion
Whether right to jury trial (Art. I, § 22) is violated by the cap	McCall: cap interferes with jury-determined damages	State: constitutional right to jury trial not implicated for wrongful-death noneconomic damages because right did not exist in 1845	Not answered on merits — Court declined because survivors’ noneconomic recovery is a statutory right that did not exist in 1845
Whether cap violates separation of powers (Art. II, § 3; Art. V, § 1)	McCall: cap amounts to legislative remittitur usurping judicial role	State: cap addresses substantive legislative policy (insurance/healthcare) and does not perform case-by-case remittitur	Not answered on merits — Court declined as advisory in part because statute governs both common-law and statutory claims and answering would be advisory

Key Cases Cited

St. Mary's Hosp., Inc. v. Phillipe, 769 So.2d 961 (Fla. 2000) (aggregate caps raise equal protection concerns when they reduce awards solely because multiple claimants exist)
Samples v. Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n, 114 So.3d 912 (Fla. 2013) (upheld parental award limit under a no-fault plan as rationally related to actuarial soundness of the plan)
Mizrahi v. N. Miami Med. Ctr., 761 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 2000) (upheld as rational a legislative limitation that excluded a class from recovery where Legislature added a right but rationally limited it to control healthcare costs)
Univ. of Miami v. Echarte, 618 So.2d 189 (Fla. 1993) (upheld arbitration-related caps and explained deference to legislative findings unless clearly erroneous)
Best v. Taylor Mach. Works, 179 Ill.2d 367 (Ill. 1997) (invalidated per-plaintiff noneconomic cap as discriminatory to severely injured plaintiffs)
Lucas v. United States, 757 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. 1988) (struck down caps as unreasonable when applied to catastrophically injured persons)
Estate of McCall v. United States, 642 F.3d 944 (11th Cir. 2011) (federal appellate opinion that certified Florida constitutional questions to the Florida Supreme Court)