Alabama Supreme Court Orders $5.5 Million Verdict in Medical Malpractice Case Reduced to $3 Million; Dissent Seeks Better Process for Review of Wrongful Death Damages
In this wrongful death-medical malpractice case, the plaintiff alleged that the medical care provided to his mother at Mobile Infirmary resulted in her death. While the court unanimously upheld the finding of liability, only 5 members favored remittitur.
The majority's remittitur analysis was short and to the point. After noting that the trial court's award of punitive- damages is reviewed de novo, with no presumption of correctness, the court stated simply "our de novo review of the punitive damages award in this case, which involved our application of the Gore guideposts and the Hammond and Green Oil factors, lead us to conclude that the punitive-damages award should have amounted to no more than $3,000,000."
Far more interesting than the majority's remittitur analysis, however, was Justice Lyons' dissent. Justice Lyons indicated that there must be a "better process" for review of damages awards in wrongful death cases. He termed the current process a "callous business" whereby the court is forced to establish a base price for the value of a human life and then extrapolate therefrom an additional sum to determine what punitive damages "are appropriate to effectuate the legislative policy of preventing homicide by making it expensive." Justice Lyons found the majority's reduction of almost 50% to be excessive and indicated his willingness to reconsider Tillis Trucking Co. v. Moses, 748 So.2d 874 (Ala. 1999) (in which the court rejected a constitutional challenge to Alabama's Wrongful Death Act). Justice Lyons wrote:
I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the constitutionality of a process that holds, alternatively, that 'the ratio factor does not apply" or that it "applies in principle without mathematical application." I am willing to reconsider my vote in Tillis Trucking in a future case in which we are reminded of the diminished effect of stare decisis when faced with a question of constitutionality and asked to overrule Tillis Trucking. If a majority of the Court were so inclined, then we would have to make the difficult choice between striking the wrongful-death statute down in its entirety or saving it with a construction of the statute consistent with standards of due process prevailing in the 21st century. In the meantime, I choose not to ignore the applicability of a ratio, so I must struggle today with the second alternative in Tillis Trucking of treating death as "a great harm" and then attempting to apply a ratio "in principle without mathematical application."
Chief Justice Cobb, along with Justices Woodall and Murdock also dissented from the remittitur, but did not join Justice Lyon's dissent.
Also of note was the majority's discussion of Alabama Code section 6-5-547, which limited a judgment against a health care provider to $1 million. Although that section was declared unconstitutional in Smith v. Schulte, 671 So.2d 1334 (Ala. 1995), that case was overruled in Ex parte Apicella, 809 So.2d 865, 874 (Ala. 2001). Mobile Infirmary argued that the ruling in Apicella revived 6-5-547.
The court rejected this argument, pointing out that it had already rejected a similar argument concerning Alabama Code section 6-5-544, a companion statute to 6-5-547, in Mobile Infirmary Medical Center v. Hodgen, 884 So.2d 801 (Ala. 2003). There, the court found that Alabama Code 6-11-21(d), which limited punitive damages in all civil actions for physical injury, was passed with knowledge of the court's holding as to 6-5-547, enacted a new statutory cap on punitive damages. Although 6-11-21(d) did not apply to wrongful death claims, the infirmary completely failed to address the effect of Hodgen's holding regarding 6-5-544 on 6-5-547. Therefore, the court declined to accept its invitation to revive 6-5-547.
