943 F.3d 319
7th Cir.2019Background
- Kevin Clanton was treated over several years by nurse practitioner Denise Jordan (U.S. Public Health Service) for severe hypertension; Jordan failed to educate him, review lab results, or refer him to a nephrologist.
- Jordan’s failures contributed to Clanton’s progression to end‑stage renal disease; he began hemodialysis and later received a kidney transplant but will likely need more treatment.
- Clanton sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act; after a five‑day bench trial the district court found the U.S. liable and awarded nearly $30 million.
- The district court found no comparative negligence by Clanton, rejected the government’s election for periodic payment, calculated $13.75 million in noneconomic damages using gross‑award and ratio comparisons, and declined to offset damages for Medicare payments.
- The government appealed the comparative‑negligence finding and three damages rulings: periodic payment election, methodology of noneconomic damages comparison, and partial offset for Medicare Part B coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clanton) | Defendant's Argument (United States) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court applied correct legal standard for comparative negligence | Clanton argued the court correctly found no contributory negligence because he subjectively did not understand his condition | Government argued Illinois law requires objective reasonable‑person standard comparing plaintiff’s conduct to a reasonable person in like circumstances | Vacated and remanded: court must apply Illinois objective reasonable‑person standard when assessing comparative negligence |
| Whether government was entitled to elect periodic payment under then‑existing Illinois statute | Clanton opposed periodic payment | Government contended statute gave it a right to elect periodic payments and court erred in rejecting that election | No need to decide on statutory interpretation because Illinois has repealed the periodic‑payment statute; repeal is retroactive for special remedial statutes, so periodic payment is no longer available |
| Whether district court’s noneconomic damages analysis (gross award and ratio methods) was flawed | Clanton relied on the court’s comparisons and methods to support the award | Government challenged exclusion of two comparator cases and the use of the ratio method | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion excluding Hawaii cases; ratio method error (if any) harmless because it did not affect final award |
| Whether Medicare Part B payments require a partial offset against damages (collateral‑source issue) | Clanton argued Medicare benefits are collateral and the government is not entitled to partial offset | Government argued that taxpayer funding of Medicare means benefits are not fully collateral and partial offset is appropriate to avoid double recovery | Affirmed district court: under Illinois law Medicare Part B payments are collateral; government not entitled to partial offset |
Key Cases Cited
- Del Raso v. United States, 244 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2001) (de novo review of state‑law determinations in FTCA cases)
- McCarthy v. Kunicki, 823 N.E.2d 1088 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (articulates Illinois reasonable‑person standard for comparative negligence)
- People ex rel. Eitel v. Lindheimer, 21 N.E.2d 318 (Ill. 1939) (repeal of special remedial statutes stops pending actions)
- Shelton v. City of Chicago, 248 N.E.2d 121 (Ill. 1969) (periodic‑payment statute is a special remedial statute)
- Caveney v. Bower, 797 N.E.2d 596 (Ill. 2003) (general rule on retroactivity: procedural retroactive, substantive prospectively)
- Perry v. Dep’t of Financial & Professional Regulation, 106 N.E.3d 1016 (Ill. 2018) (confirms remedial statutes are a distinct category subject to retroactive application)
- People v. Glisson, 782 N.E.2d 251 (Ill. 2002) (distinguishes repeals of special statutory remedies from general saving‑clause analysis)
- Laird v. Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. Co., 566 N.E.2d 944 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (holds benefits whose purpose and nature are independent of defendant’s liability are collateral)
- Wills v. Foster, 892 N.E.2d 1018 (Ill. 2008) (discusses collateral‑source doctrine under Illinois law)
- Molzof v. United States, 6 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 1993) (state law governs collateral‑source questions in FTCA cases)