Fla. Appeals Court Reinstates $9.5M Award to Widow in Med-Mal Case

Finding that a Florida law limiting noneconomic damages in medical malpractice suits cannot be applied retroactively, a state appeals court has reinstated a $9.5 million award to the widow of a man who died as a result of alleged medical negligence.

The law, Fla. Stat. § 766.118(4), which was enacted by in September 2003, limits damages for pain and suffering to a maximum of $300,000 in any cause of action for personal injury or wrongful death arising from a claim for medical negligence.

In April 2003 Harvey Raphael had a heart attack and was rushed to Palms West hospital, according to the opinion.

Physician James Shecter failed to timely administer critical anti-clotting medications, which resulted in Raphael's suffering significant damage to his heart, the opinion says.

In 2005 Raphael and his wife, Nadine, filed a medical negligence suit against Shecter; his employer, Emergency Physician Enterprises Inc.; and the hospital in the Palm Beach County Circuit Court.

Shecter died in 2006 following unsuccessful heart transplant surgery, the opinion says.

The suit proceeded to trial against Shecter and his employer after the hospital reached a confidential settlement with the estate.

The jury awarded Nadine Raphael $9.5 million in noneconomic damages.

Shecter moved to limit Raphael's pain-and-suffering damages to $300,000 pursuant to Section 766.118(4), arguing that the suit was filed more than two years after the damages cap was enacted and therefore applied to the jury's verdict.

Raphael countered that her husband's injuries occurred five months before the cap went into effect and that the verdict was governed by Fla. Stat. § 766.209(2), which does not limit the amount of recoverable noneconomic damages.

Judge Jonathan D. Gerber granted Shecter's motion and reduced the award for pain and suffering to $300,000.

Raphael appealed the verdict reduction, arguing that the trial court erred in applying the damages cap retroactively.

The 4th District Court of Appeal reversed the order after observing that Florida courts historically looked with "disapproval and extreme caution" at the retroactive application of laws.

Judge Spencer Levine, writing for the court, further noted that even when the legislature expressly states that a statute is to have retroactive application, courts have refused to comply where the statute "impairs vested rights, creates new obligations or imposes new penalties."

Harvey Raphael's rights vested April 10, 2003, at the time the malpractice occurred, and to retroactively impose the 2005 statute would impair those rights, the court ruled.

The unanimous panel reversed the order and reinstated the jury verdict.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@ThomsonReuters.com.