Tort Reform
Supreme Court Issues Favorable Ruling and Tort Cases
The Missouri Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling on September 11, 2018, in the Shallow v. Follwell case. The plaintiff in this case had argued that the defendant’s four expert witnesses amounted to cumulative evidence, which can have a prejudicial effect if introduced to the jury. The court found that even though some of the testimony overlapped, each expert testified about their own specialties, and offered their own specific opinions on the case. Therefore, the probative value of the evidence outweighed any cumulative effect on the jury. In April, MSMA teamed up with the Litigation Center of the AMA and State Medical Societies to file an amicus brief in support of the defendant physician.
The Missouri Supreme Court has heard two cases that attempt to overturn the way in which defendants are allowed to make payments in medical malpractice cases. The plaintiffs in Tharp v. St. Luke’s and Williams v. Mercy argue that the statute allowing for periodic payments unjustly interferes with the plaintiff’s right to a trial by jury, usurps the role of the judiciary, and is an unlawful taking. Present law allows defendants to request a payment plan if they are responsible for damages exceeding $100,000. The Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that periodic payments do not violate equal protection or due process. Oral arguments were held on both cases on September 5, 2018. MSMA is awaiting the court’s decision, which is likely to be released this winter.
The Missouri Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling on September 11, 2018, in the Shallow v. Follwell case. The plaintiff in this case had argued that the defendant’s four expert witnesses amounted to cumulative evidence, which can have a prejudicial effect if introduced to the jury. The court found that even though some of the testimony overlapped, each expert testified about their own specialties, and offered their own specific opinions on the case. Therefore, the probative value of the evidence outweighed any cumulative effect on the jury. In April, MSMA teamed up with the Litigation Center of the AMA and State Medical Societies to file an amicus brief in support of the defendant physician.
The Missouri Supreme Court has heard two cases that attempt to overturn the way in which defendants are allowed to make payments in medical malpractice cases. The plaintiffs in Tharp v. St. Luke’s and Williams v. Mercy argue that the statute allowing for periodic payments unjustly interferes with the plaintiff’s right to a trial by jury, usurps the role of the judiciary, and is an unlawful taking. Present law allows defendants to request a payment plan if they are responsible for damages exceeding $100,000. The Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that periodic payments do not violate equal protection or due process. Oral arguments were held on both cases on September 5, 2018. MSMA is awaiting the court’s decision, which is likely to be released this winter.
