Challenge to damages cap premature

Where it has not been resolved whether healthcare professionals caused or exacerbated the plaintiff’s injuries, he has not shown he is entitled to damages in excess of Virginia’s $2 million statutory cap on medical malpractice damages and thus lacks standing to assert the limit is unconstitutional.

Background

Plaintiff J.S., represented by next friends, filed a lawsuit alleging that health care providers employed by defendant Winchester Pediatric Clinic PC, or WPC, were negligent in their provision of care to him and that their negligence resulted in serious injury to him. Because J.S. had previously settled a lawsuit against other defendants for $2 million, the maximum amount of damages he could receive in a medical malpractice lawsuit capped under Virginia Code § 8.01-581.15, he seeks a declaratory judgment that the damages cap is unconstitutional.

The court asked the parties to brief whether the constitutionality of the malpractice award cap is ripe for adjudication. The parties, along with the commonwealth which has appeared in the case, filed briefs on the issue of ripeness, and the court held a hearing on Nov. 23, 2020.

Standing

J.S. asserts that he is entitled to have the court address the constitutionality of the Virginia medical malpractice cap before he proceeds with his negligence lawsuit against WPC. He first argues that the immediacy and reality of the need for a declaratory judgment is established by the imminent prospect of a medical malpractice trial and the fact that he anticipates that WPC will move to dismiss his case based on the damages cap.

However, at this point in the litigation, if the court were to declare the statute unconstitutional, J.S. would not be entitled to relief and any opinion by the court would merely be “advising what the law would be” if he were to prevail on his negligence cause of action. Absent a determination by a factfinder that WPC is liable for his injuries, J.S. cannot show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of the damages cap.

At this point, J.S. cannot show that he has an actual injury because a finding has not been made that WPC is liable for his injuries such that he would be entitled to compensation were it not for the damages cap. Accordingly, he lacks standing to challenge the damages cap.

Ripeness

The issue of the constitutionality of the damages cap is not fit for adjudication because it is not purely a legal issue. Rather, the question hinges upon a future factual determination that health care professionals working for WPC caused or exacerbated J.S.’s injuries. That finding is uncertain at this point. If a factfinder determines that WPC was not liable for J.S.’s injuries, or that the injuries did not exceed the damages cap, the court will not need to address the constitutionality of the damages cap.

J.S. contends that he will suffer a hardship if the constitutionality of the damages cap is not adjudicated before the liability determination is made, because he will not have a cause of action and therefore will lose his constitutional right of access to courts. However, J.S. is not at risk of losing his right of access to the court, as he is free to pursue his case against WPC and seek a jury verdict on liability.

To be sure, J.S. does run the risk of incurring the costs of a trial, obtaining a favorable jury verdict, and not being able to collect damages from WPC if the court finds that the damages cap remains constitutional. However, saving the cost of litigation is not sufficient by itself to justify review in a case that is otherwise unripe.

J.S. points to three cases where he asserts that courts decided declaratory judgment actions in circumstances similar to his. The court finds each case inapposite. On the other hand, WPC cited several cases where courts declined to address the constitutionality of a damages cap until after liability was established. These cases support the conclusion that the constitutionality of the medical malpractice cap is not ripe for adjudication.

J.S.’s request for relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act denied.

J.S. v. Winchester Pediatric Clinic PC, Case No. 5:19-cv-0097, March 4, 2021. WDVA at Harrisonburg (Urbanski). VLW 021-3-086. 18 pp.