Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n
Decision Date | 27 September 1991 |
Citation | 592 So.2d 156 |
Parties | Barbara MOORE v. MOBILE INFIRMARY ASSOCIATION. 89-1087. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Gregory B. Breedlove and Andrew T. Citrin of Cunningham, Bounds, Yance, Crowder and Brown, Mobile, for appellant.
W. Michael Atchison, W. Stancil Starnes, Laura H. Peck and A. Sybil Vogtle of Starnes & Atchison, Birmingham, for appellee.
Jack Drake of Drake, Knowles & Pierce, Tuscaloosa, for amicus curiae Alabama Trial Lawyers Ass'n.
Barbara Moore appeals from a judgment reducing the amount of damages awarded to her by the jury in a medical malpractice case against Mobile Infirmary Association ("Infirmary"). We reverse.
The undisputed facts reveal that on September 8, 1988, Barbara Moore entered the Infirmary's health care facility for treatment of lower back pain. Her physician prescribed bed rest, traction, physical therapy, pain medications, muscle relaxants, and anti-inflammatory agents. As a sedative, he prescribed periodic muscular injections of "sparine."
On September 18, a nurse injected sparine into Ms. Moore's right forearm, an improper location for such an injection. The injection caused an immediate "burning sensation," followed by a loss of feeling in portions of the right hand. The numbness in her right hand persisted after her discharge from the Infirmary.
On September 21, 1988, Ms. Moore suffered third-degree burns to her little finger while cooking. Because of the absence of sensation in her hand, she was unaware of the significance of the injury until the affected area became gangrenous. The gangrenous condition eventually required amputation of the right little finger. Her right ring finger has also become permanently anesthetized and contracted, and she is expected to experience permanent pain in other areas of her right hand and arm.
Ms. Moore filed an action against the Infirmary in which she sought compensatory and punitive damages, including damages for "physical pain and mental anguish," physical impairment, and disfigurement as a result of alleged negligence or wantonness of the Infirmary's employees. At trial, the Infirmary consented to the entry of a directed verdict against it in favor of Barbara Moore on the issue of liability. The jury, after considering only the issue of damages, returned the following verdict:
The trial judge, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-544(b), reduced the amount of the award of noneconomic damages to $400,000 and entered a judgment against the Infirmary in the amount of $459,000. The judgment thus included the sums of $59,000, which represented economic damages for lost earnings and medical expenses, and $400,000 in damages for noneconomic loss, as defined by the statute. On appeal, the only issue presented for review is whether the statute's limitation on the amount of noneconomic damages that a jury may award offends the Constitution of Alabama of 1901.
Section 6-5-544(b) was enacted as part of the Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1987. Act. No. 87-189, § 5, 1987 Ala.Acts 261. The statute provides:
Id. Section 6-5-544(a) defines "noneconomic loss" as "losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, loss of consortium and other nonpecuniary damage."
Ms. Moore contends that § 6-5-544(b) violates various provisions of the Declaration of Rights, which composes article one of the Constitution of Alabama. In particular, she insists that the statutory ceiling on damages violates (1) the right to trial by jury as guaranteed by Ala. Const. art. I, § 11, (2) guarantees of equal protection and due process, (3) the right-of-access-to-courts provision of Ala. Const. art. I, § 13, and (4) the separation of powers provisions of Ala. Const. art. III, §§ 42, 43. Ms. Moore does not challenge the validity of § 6-5-544(b) under any provision of the United States Constitution; therefore, our analysis and conclusions regarding the constitutionality of § 6-5-544(b) are based entirely on adequate and independent state law grounds.
Our disposition of this case is facilitated by reference to the substantial body of case law that has evolved from constitutional challenges brought in the highest courts of other states to statutes imposing damages "caps" of various types. As of the date of this opinion, it appears that the majority of courts reviewing challenges under the constitutions of their respective states have invalidated limitations on damages. See, e.g., Smith v. Department of Ins., 507 So.2d 1080 (Fla.1987) ( ); Wright v. Central Du Page Hosp. Ass'n, 63 Ill.2d 313, 347 N.E.2d 736 (1976) ( ); Brannigan v. Usitalo, 134 N.H. 50, 587 A.2d 1232 (1991) ( ); Carson v. Maurer, 120 N.H. 925, 424 A.2d 825 (1980) ( ); Arneson v. Olson, 270 N.W.2d 125 (N.D.1978) ( ); Morris v. Savoy, 61 Ohio St.3d 684, 576 N.E.2d 765 (1991) ( ); Lucas v. United States, 757 S.W.2d 687 (Tex.1988) ( ); Condemarin v. University Hosp., 775 P.2d 348 (Utah 1989) ( ); Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wash.2d 636, 771 P.2d 711 (1989) ( ); see also L. Nelson, Tort Reform in Alabama: Are Damages Restrictions Unconstitutional? 40 Ala.L.Rev. 533 (1989). Contra, Fein v. Permanente Medical Group, 38 Cal.3d 137, 211 Cal.Rptr. 368, 695 P.2d 665 (1985) ( ); Johnson v. Saint Vincent Hosp., Inc., 273 Ind. 374, 404 N.E.2d 585 (1980) ( ); Samsel v. Wheeler Transp. Serv., Inc., 246 Kan. 336, 789 P.2d 541 (1990) ( ); Etheridge v. Medical Center Hosp., 237 Va. 87, 376 S.E.2d 525 (1989) ( ).
In reviewing the constitutionality of a statute, we "approach the question with every presumption and intendment in favor of its validity, and seek to sustain rather than strike down the enactment of a coordinate branch of the government." Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1, 9, 18 So.2d 810, 815 (1944). Nevertheless, if it clearly appears that an act of the legislature unreasonably invades rights guaranteed by the Constitution, we have not only the power but the duty to strike it down. City of Russellville v. Vulcan Materials Co., 382 So.2d 525 (Ala.1980); Peddycoart v. City of Birmingham, 354 So.2d 808 (Ala.1978).
The right to a jury trial in the courts of this state is guaranteed by Ala. Const. art. I, § 11. Section 11 provides in toto: "That the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate." As we explained in Gilbreath v. Wallace, 292 Ala. 267, 292 So.2d 651 (1974), the "crucial words" found in that section are " 'shall remain inviolate.' " The clause "forbid[s] the state through the legislative, judicial, or executive department--one or all--from ever burdening, disturbing, qualifying, or tampering with this right to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. CM
...intermediate level of review is used, the test is whether the law is reasonably related to the stated objective. Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 592 So.2d 156 (Ala.1991). If the rational-relation level is used, the law must be rationally related to the state's objective. Reese v. Rankin Fi......
-
Verba v. Ghaphery
...health care providers over other tortfeasors, but of those health care providers who are most irresponsible. Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 592 So. 2d 156, 169 (Ala. 1991) (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court of New Hampshire echoed this reasoning, noting that [i]t is clear that the ......
-
Ex Parte E.R.G. And D.W.G.
...validity, and seek to sustain rather than strike down the enactment of a coordinate branch of the government.'" Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 592 So. 2d 156, 159 (Ala. 1991) (quoting Alabama State Fed'n of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1, 9, 18 So. 2d 810, 815 (1944)). Moreover, "[w]here th......
-
ex parte Jenkins
...Declaration of Rights of the Alabama Constitution combine to guarantee equal protection under the laws of Alabama. Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 592 So.2d 156 (Ala.1991). I conclude that the statutory classification created by § 26-17A-1 is not substantially related to the object of the ......
-
GENETIC DUTIES.
...Note that courts in some states have found caps to be in violation of the state constitution. See, e.g., Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 592 So. 2d 156, 171 (Ala. 1991) (declaring the $400,000 damage cap (122.) Malpractice laws also often incorporate statutes of limitations different than ......
-
The case for across-the-board application of the loss-of-chance doctrine.
...757 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. 1988); Kansas Malpractice Victims Coalition v. Bell, 757 P.2d 251 (Kan. 1988); Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 592 So.2d 156 (Ala. 1991); Morris v. Savoy, 576 N.E.2d 765 (Ohio) 1991); University of Miami v. Echarte, 585 So.2d 293 (Fla. App. 1991). See also Carol A. Cro......