Med Mal Noneconomic Damage Cap Advances, to Dismay of Some Lawyer Groups
The U.S. House of Representatives this week passed a tort reform bill that practitioners said would limit noneconomic damages to cases across the nation at $250,000 and possibly "eviscerate" certain cases against medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
June 30, 2017 at 10:00 AM
5 minute read
The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a tort reform bill that some lawyers' groups said would limit noneconomic damages to cases across the nation at $250,000 and possibly “eviscerate” certain cases against medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017 would impose the damages cap in states that have either rejected similar legislation or where courts have struck down such limits as unconstitutional. The American Association for Justice, the nation's largest plaintiffs bar organization, cited that 18 states have no cap on noneconomic damages, which compensate for pain and suffering. Those states include Pennsylvania, Georgia, New York and Florida, where the state's Supreme Court ruled this month that a cap in a medical malpractice case involving wrongful death claims was unconstitutional.
The bill applies to what it calls a “health care lawsuit.” The plaintiffs bar predicted that negligence cases against nursing homes and medical malpractice lawsuits would be most impacted by the bill. But a greater concern among some plaintiffs attorneys is the bill's possible impact on lawsuits over medical devices and pharmaceuticals. Among the list of cases the AAJ cautioned could be impacted are those involving transvaginal mesh and surgical devices called power morcellators, both mass torts now in the courts.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Truth Still Prevails': In Age of Disinformation, Defamation Attorneys Score Landmark Jury Verdict
DC Defamation Boutique Secures $8M Jury Damages Verdict in Libel Case
2 minute readJudge Orders Rudy Giuliani to Cede Assets to Cover $150 Million Defamation Judgment
'Severe Emotional Distress': DC Judge Finds Iran Liable in 3 US Hostage-Takings
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How We Won: Samsung Defeats Data Breach Class Action
- 2With Florida’s Lateral Hiring Remaining Steady in 2024, Here’s the Top Hires Throughout the State
- 3Capital Markets Partner Rejoins O’Melveny Ahead of Expected Uptick in Demand
- 4Pharma Company Faces Breach-of-Contract Claim Over $1.3 Million in Unpaid Invoices
- 5KPMG Law Seeks Alternative Business License, Shaking Up Legal Status Quo
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250