New Rule on Reducing Liability Awards Withstands Court Test
A new Supreme Court rule (Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.72) that gives judges more discretion in reducing non-economic damage awards in medical liability cases has weathered a challenge to how it was applied. The case is important because it is the first time that a judge applied the new rule to reduce a verdict.
In June 2006, a state Superior Court panel applied the remittitur rule in the case of “Vogelsberger vs. Magee-Women’s Hospital of UPMC Health System.” The plaintiff had sought to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.
Rule 1042.72 allows a trial court to issue a remittitur order reducing a medical liability non-economic damage award if it “deviates substantially from reasonable compensation.” If the plaintiff declines to accept the reduced verdict, the defendant is entitled to a new trial on the issue of non-economic loss.
This new rule is very important for physicians and the medical community in that it offers improved recourse in cases where large awards are granted.
In its ruling in 2006, the Superior Court panel not only applied the rule but also, importantly, adopted the argument that the new rule imposed a more lenient standard in that the judge need not determine that the award “shocks the conscience” for it to qualify for remittitur.
The Pennsylvania Medical Society filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief supporting that issue.
In Vogelsberger vs. Magee-Women’s Hospital of UPMC Health System, the plaintiff filed suit against her gynecologist for his failure to remove her ovaries at the time he performed a hysterectomy and against the hospital for an episode of respiratory depression following the hysterectomy.
The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded non-economic damages of $250,000 against the physician and $350,000 against Magee-Women’s Hospital.
Justice Cynthia A. Baldwin (who is now a Supreme Court Justice) reduced the hospital damages to $75,000 and the physician damages to $125,000.
[Top]
Last Updated: 9/11/2007