It's funny that your law professor would say something like that, because it is absolutely untrue. The truth of it is that it is a matter of state law, and each state has their own rules. I don't have a lot of experience outside of New York, (there is no P&S cap in NY... thank god) but I have referred cases to other states that have a cap. I recently referred a case to Colorado involving medical malpractice and was disappointed to hear that they had a cap on P&S (I think it was $300,000). The case involved the client contracting HIV through improper handling of needles/bloodwork in a hospital.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainForest
This is the kind of case that really breaks your heart. What is the rationale behind capping her recovery at $300,000? Is that what her life is worth? Now as a practical matter, the P&S cap often doesn't come into play as much as you would think, due to a jury sometimes compensating for it by finding increased costs of future medical care, etc. But it is still a big problem. Not to mention the deterrent effect it has in malpractice cases. (ie: IMO a doctor is more likely to treat a patient appropriately if he knows he could lose his home for committing malpractice.)
Even in jurisdictions where there is no cap on P&S, there is a cap. It is called THE COMMON SENSE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE... and/or appellate judge. The thing that nobody tells you when you see these gigantic verdicts in the newspaper is that 90% of them are settled for far less after the verdict, or reduced by the trial judge. Every plaintiff's lawyer's website is full of asterisks that say things like (14 M verdict actually reduced to $750,000 on post trial motion)... etc, etc, etc.
