FEIN v. PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP
No. 85-19
Supreme Court of the United States
474 U.S. 892
JUSTICE WHITE, dissenting.
No. 84-929. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.
No. 84-1773. PINE HILL CIVIC CLUB, INC., ET AL. v. DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA, ET AL. Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ga. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.
No. 84-1881. HEDGES v. ALLINDER. Appeal from Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.
No. 85-417. EXOTIC COINS, INC., ET AL. v. BEACOM, DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR COUNTY OF ADAMS, ET AL. Appeal from Sup. Ct. Colo. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.
No. 85-19. FEIN v. PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP. Appeal from Sup. Ct. Cal. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.
JUSTICE WHITE, dissenting.
Appellant brought a medical malpractice action against appellee, Permanente Medical Group, a partnership of physicians, fоr failing to diagnose and prevent a myocardial infarction. The jury awarded appellant total damages of $1,287,783, including $500,000 for nоneconomic losses. The trial judge, however, pursuant to
Similarly, the court found that
California thus joins Indiana as the only two States to uphold the constitutionality оf this type of medical malpractice damages limits. See Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, Inc., 404 N. E. 2d 585, 598-601 (Ind. 1980). Four other States which have addressed similar damages limitations hаve invalidated the challenged provisions on federal constitutional grounds. Baptist Hospital of Southeast Texas v. Baber, 672 S. W. 2d 296, 298 (Tex. App. 1984) ($500,000 limit on damages other than medical expenses); Carson v. Maurer, 120 N. H. 925, 941-943, 424 A. 2d 825, 836-838 (1980) ($250,000 limit on “noneconomic” damages); Arneson v. Olsen, 270 N. W. 2d 125, 135-136 (N. D. 1978) ($300,000 limit on total damages); Simon v. St. Elizabeth Medical Center, 3 Ohio Op. 3d 164, 166, 355 N. E. 2d 903, 906-907 (Com. Pl. 1976) ($200,000 limit on “general” damages).*
The North Dakota Supreme Court in Arneson, supra, followed Duke Power Co., and refused to hold that the legislature may not limit a pre-existing right without providing a quid pro quo. 270 N. W. 2d, at 134-135. Nevertheless, the court went оn to find that the imposition of a damages cap on malpractice claims did not provide a sufficient quid pro quo for the severеly injured malpractice plaintiff, as his loss of recovery was offset only by lower medical costs for all recipients of medical care, and he received no specific benefit in return. Id., at 136, citing Wright v. Central Du Page Hospital Assn., 63 Ill. 2d 313, 328, 347 N. E. 2d 736, 743 (1976). This approach has been followed by the courts in Tеxas and New Hampshire. See Baptist Hospital of Southeast Texas, supra, at 298; Carson, supra, at 941-943, 424 A. 2d, at 837-838. In the instant case, however, the California Supreme Court concluded that “it would be difficult to say that the preservation of a viable medical malpractice insurance industry in this state was not an adequate benefit for thе detriment the legislation imposes on malpractice plaintiffs.” 38 Cal. 3d, at 160, n. 18, 695 P. 2d, at 681-682, n. 18.
Whether due process requires a legislatively enactеd compensation scheme to be a quid pro quo for the common-law or state-law remedy it replaces, and if so, how adequate it must be, thus ap-
No. 85-37. SPENDLOVE ET AL. v. ANCHORAGE MUNICIPAL ZONING BOARD OF EXAMINERS AND APPEALS ET AL. Appeal from Sup. Ct. Alaska dismissеd for want of jurisdiction.
No. 85-152. THOMPSON ET AL. v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. Appeal from Cir. Ct. Ky., Kenton County, dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
No. 85-191. ZERMAN ET AL. v. AVANT GARDE CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., ET AL.; and ZERMAN v. WHITE, CLERK OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, ET AL. Appeals from Sup. Ct. Fla. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Reported below: 466 So. 2d 218 (first case); 472 So. 2d 1182 (second case).
No. 85-123. MUKA v. CARTER, CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL. Appeal from Sup. Ct. R. I. dismissed for want of a final judgment.
No. 85-309. ROUSSOS v. RETINA CONSULTANTS, P. C. Appeal from Ct. Sp. App. Md. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.
No. 85-5263. SMITH v. SCULLY. Appeal from Ct. App. Ore. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.
No. 85-231. BOATING INDUSTRY ASSNS. ET AL. v. MOORE ET AL. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideratiоn in light of Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U. S. 284 (1985).