Are California’s Limits on Non-Economic Damages Unconstitutional?
August 11, 2011 By Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
Call the Attorney at (866) 981-5596 
Free Consultation
Call the Attorney at (866) 981-5596 Free Consultation
Ever since the California Legislature passed the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA), plaintiff’s attorneys have been working hard to repeal or amend the law. It is patently unfair to cap a malpractice victim’s non-economic damages, and it gives doctors and healthcare facilities incentive to do a cost benefit analysis on human lives.
And for good reasons, MICRA has several unintended side effects which are harmful to people who have suffered personal injury due to the negligence of doctors or hospital staff, explains an attorney in the state. Therefore, MICRA should be amended or repealed to protect the rights of victims of doctor negligence; however, challenges to its constitutionality will likely prove unsuccessful.
Despite all of the negative side-effects suffered by malpractice victims, MICRA is still in force today. But why? The reason is simple: MICRA is consistently held to be constitutional when it is challenged in courts. But once we review how constitutional challenges work, one can see that MICRA is in fact constitutional and it should not be repealed on a constitutional challenge.
Rational Basis Analysis
When someone wants to challenge a law on constitutional grounds, it has to pass a scrutiny analysis. One must look at the legislators’ intent when they drafted the law, which must benefit society as a whole and not unjustly burden a specific class of people. Some laws are scrutinized more heavily than others. A law will have to pass a stricter scrutiny analysis only if the law discriminates against a “suspect class.” Common examples of suspect classes are race, gender, ethnicity, or religious affiliation. Thus, if the Legislature passes a law that that discriminates against a racial minority, for example, the law will be reviewed under a stricter scrutiny because race is considered a “suspect class.”
Malpractice victims are not considered a suspect class, so the legislature will not have a hard time defending the law when it is challenged on constitutional grounds. The law will only have to pass a lenient scrutiny analysis called the “rational basis test.” In order for a law to pass the rational basis test, the legislature will only have to prove that the law is “rationally related to achieve a legitimate governmental interest.” In general, most laws passed by the legislature will pass the rational basis analysis.
The intent of California legislators in enacting MICRA was to keep malpractice insurance rates affordable for physicians and to keep healthcare costs low and stable for patients. To achieve this, MICRA has made it tougher for those who have suffered personal injury while under the care of negligent doctors to obtain high jury awards, explains an attorney in the state. MICRA limits the non-economic damages award to $250,000.00 and only gives malpractice victims a year to file a lawsuit in court instead of two. Also, attorney’s fees on malpractice cases are capped based on a percentage. Finally, doctors and healthcare facilities no longer have to pay the jury award all at once, and they have a choice to pay the award in installments.
MICRA law clearly burdens malpractice victims. However, the legislature can easily justify discriminating and burdening this group of people because the provisions of MICRA are rationally related to achieve the legitimate governmental interest of keeping healthcare costs and malpractice insurance rates low. Therefore, MICRA has always been able to pass the rational basis test, which is why it is still stands today.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Jim Ballidis
Jim Ballidis is a partner at Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie.
Copyright Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
More information about Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
Despite all of the negative side-effects suffered by malpractice victims, MICRA is still in force today. But why? The reason is simple: MICRA is consistently held to be constitutional when it is challenged in courts. But once we review how constitutional challenges work, one can see that MICRA is in fact constitutional and it should not be repealed on a constitutional challenge.
Rational Basis Analysis
When someone wants to challenge a law on constitutional grounds, it has to pass a scrutiny analysis. One must look at the legislators’ intent when they drafted the law, which must benefit society as a whole and not unjustly burden a specific class of people. Some laws are scrutinized more heavily than others. A law will have to pass a stricter scrutiny analysis only if the law discriminates against a “suspect class.” Common examples of suspect classes are race, gender, ethnicity, or religious affiliation. Thus, if the Legislature passes a law that that discriminates against a racial minority, for example, the law will be reviewed under a stricter scrutiny because race is considered a “suspect class.”
Malpractice victims are not considered a suspect class, so the legislature will not have a hard time defending the law when it is challenged on constitutional grounds. The law will only have to pass a lenient scrutiny analysis called the “rational basis test.” In order for a law to pass the rational basis test, the legislature will only have to prove that the law is “rationally related to achieve a legitimate governmental interest.” In general, most laws passed by the legislature will pass the rational basis analysis.
The intent of California legislators in enacting MICRA was to keep malpractice insurance rates affordable for physicians and to keep healthcare costs low and stable for patients. To achieve this, MICRA has made it tougher for those who have suffered personal injury while under the care of negligent doctors to obtain high jury awards, explains an attorney in the state. MICRA limits the non-economic damages award to $250,000.00 and only gives malpractice victims a year to file a lawsuit in court instead of two. Also, attorney’s fees on malpractice cases are capped based on a percentage. Finally, doctors and healthcare facilities no longer have to pay the jury award all at once, and they have a choice to pay the award in installments.
MICRA law clearly burdens malpractice victims. However, the legislature can easily justify discriminating and burdening this group of people because the provisions of MICRA are rationally related to achieve the legitimate governmental interest of keeping healthcare costs and malpractice insurance rates low. Therefore, MICRA has always been able to pass the rational basis test, which is why it is still stands today.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Jim Ballidis
Jim Ballidis is a partner at Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie.
Copyright Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
More information about Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
View all articles published by Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
