Mayo v. Wisconsin Injured Patients & Families Compensation Fund
901 N.W.2d 782
Wis. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2011 Ascaris Mayo developed untreated sepsis after an ER visit, resulting in near-total organ failure and amputations of all four extremities; plaintiffs (the Mayos) sued for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent.
- After a jury awarded Ascaris $15,000,000 in noneconomic damages and Antonio $1,500,000 for loss of consortium, the Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund (the Fund) moved to reduce the awards to the statutory noneconomic damages cap of $750,000 (Wis. Stat. § 893.55).
- The circuit court held the statute was not facially unconstitutional but was unconstitutional as applied to the Mayos and entered judgment for the full jury awards.
- The Fund appealed the as-applied ruling; the Mayos cross-appealed the circuit court’s denial of their facial challenge.
- The appellate court applied rational-basis review (following Ferdon), concluded the $750,000 cap is facially unconstitutional because it irrationally burdens catastrophically injured claimants while leaving less-injured claimants fully compensated, and therefore affirmed the judgment for the Mayos on different grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Mayo's Argument | Fund's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wis. Stat. § 893.55(4)(d)1. (noneconomic damages cap) is facially unconstitutional under equal protection | Cap arbitrarily and irrationally singles out catastrophically injured patients by reducing only their full jury awards; no rational link between $750,000 figure and stated legislative goals | Cap is a rational legislative choice to promote affordable health care, limit defensive medicine, stabilize premiums, and protect Fund solvency; rational-basis review applies | Court held the $750,000 cap is facially unconstitutional because it irrationally burdens the class of most severely injured malpractice victims without objective factual support linking the cap amount to legislative goals |
| Whether rational-basis review or a higher scrutiny applies | Mayos suggested stricter scrutiny based on asserted property interest in the Fund | Fund argued rational-basis applies (as in Ferdon) because no suspect class or fundamental right is implicated | Court applied rational-basis review consistent with Ferdon and rejected strict-scrutiny argument |
| Whether the cap is unconstitutional as applied to the Mayos | The cap would reduce Ascaris’s noneconomic award by ~95%, depriving them of constitutionally required equal protection in this particular case | Fund argued circuit court erred in as-applied ruling | Because the cap is facially unconstitutional, appellate court did not reach the as-applied question (result still leaves Mayos entitled to full award) |
| Whether legislative record supports the $750,000 cap as rationally related to objectives (physician retention, reduced defensive medicine, lower premiums, Fund solvency) | No evidence links the specific cap amount to objectives; data shows no consistent effect of caps on retention, defensive medicine, premiums, or Fund solvency | Legislature’s findings and policy judgments suffice; courts should defer to those legislative choices | Court found no factual basis in the record tying the $750,000 cap to the stated objectives and deemed the selection arbitrary, echoing Ferdon |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferdon ex rel. Petrucelli v. Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund, 284 Wis. 2d 573, 701 N.W.2d 440 (Wis. 2005) (held prior noneconomic-damages cap facially unconstitutional under rational-basis equal protection analysis)
- State v. Cole, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328 (Wis. 2003) (standard of review for constitutional questions reviewed de novo)
- Olson v. Town of Cottage Grove, 309 Wis. 2d 365, 749 N.W.2d 211 (Wis. 2008) (defines facial challenge and review concepts)
- State v. Jorgensen, 264 Wis. 2d 157, 667 N.W.2d 318 (Wis. 2003) (explains rational-basis formulation for equal protection review)