Watts ex rel. Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers
2012 Mo. LEXIS 155
| Mo. | 2012Background
- Watts sued Cox for medical negligence leading to Naython’s catastrophic brain injuries at birth.
- Trial awarded $1.45M non-economic and $3.371M future medical damages; jury reduced future damages to present value.
- Trial court reduced non-economic damages to $350,000 under section 538.210 and set a 50-year periodic payment at 0.26% interest via section 538.220.
- Cox cross-appealed, arguing section 538.220 requires all future damages to be paid periodically, not lump-sum portions.
- Watts challenged both sections: 538.210 cap on noneconomic damages and 538.220 periodic payment scheme; Cox sought lump-sum for future medical damages.
- Missouri Supreme Court held section 538.210 violates the right to trial by jury, overruling Adams v. Children’s Mercy Hosp. on that point; 538.220’s structure must assure full compensation and may include lump-sum portions; case remanded for new periodic payment order consistent with full recovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does section 538.210 violate the right to jury trial? | Watts contends cap infringes the jury’s fact-finding function. | Cox and Adams argue cap is permissible since law sets damages after jury finds facts. | 538.210 violates the right to a jury trial; overrules Adams to the extent inconsistent. |
| Whether Adams governs the jury-damage issue and should be overruled? | Continued adherence to Adams is improper. | Adams controls; cap permissible. | Adams overruled; 538.210 violates the inviolate jury-trial right. |
| Is the 538.220 periodic-dayment scheme constitutional and capable of full compensation? | Low interest rate and 50-year term jeopardize full recovery. | Statute grants court broad flexibility to ensure full compensation. | Scheme must assure full recovery; remand for a new schedule that preserves the jury’s award value. |
| Can the court order lump-sum portions under 538.220 for future medical damages? | Jury’s damages should be paid as awarded or properly structured to secure funding. | Statute allows court to determine partition between lump sum and periodic payments. | Court must determine portion paid in periodic payments; not be bound to all-periodic-payment interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams by and Through Adams v. Children’s Mercy Hosp., 832 S.W.2d 898 (Mo. banc 1992) (jury’s fact-finding role; damages cap violates inviolate right to jury trial when applied today)
- Diehl v. O’Malley, 95 S.W.3d 82 (Mo. banc 2003) (right to jury trial analyzed via historical common law; inviolate concept)
- Klotz v. St. Anthony’s Med. Ctr., 311 S.W.3d 752 (Mo. banc 2010) (remittitur history; caps’ effect on jury role)
- Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wash.2d 636, 771 P.2d 711 (1989) (jury’s damages-determination function protected; caps violate otherwise)
- Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (1935) (jury’s role in determining damages foundational in federal context)
- Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412 (1987) (jury determines liability; civil penalties not always required to be determined by jury)