X hits on this document

239 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

87 / 90

(n372) Id. at 305.

(n372) Id. at 305.

(n373) Id. at 304.

(n374) See supra notes 71-88 and accompanying text; infra notes 395-402 and accompanying text.

[n375] See generally, e.g., E. Haavi Morreim, Cost Containment and the Standard of Medical Care, 75 CAT. L. REV. 1719, 1740-42 (1987); Kenneth Vinson, Constitutional Stumbling Blocks to Legislative Tort Reform, 15 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 31 (1987); Randall R. Bovbjerg et al., Public Policy: Valuing Life and Limb In Tort: Scheduling "Pain and Suffering", 83 Nw. U. L. REV. 908 (1989); Daryl L. Jones, Note, Fein v. Permanente Medical Group: The Supreme Court Uncaps the Constitutionality of Statutory Limitations on Medical Malpractice Recoveries, 40 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1075 (1986); Todd M. Kossow, Note, Fein v. Permanente Medical Group: Future Trends in Damage Limitation Adjudication, 80 Nw. U. L. REV. 1643 (1987); Manzer, surpa note 202.

[n376] See, e.g., Arneson v. Olson, 270 N.W.2d 125, 136 (N.D. 1978) (holding that North Dakota's statute limiting total recovery for medical malpractice to $300,000 violated the state and federal constitution's equal protection clauses.); Johnson v. St. Vincent Hosp. Inc., 404 N.E.2d 585 (Inc. 1980) (upholding $500,000 total recovery provision of the Indiana Malpractice Act in the face of constitutional challenges under due process, access to courts, equal protection, privileges and immunities, and trial by jury provisions of the Indiana and federal constitutions); Lucas v. United States, 757 S.W.2d (Text 1988) (holding that Texas statute limiting total medical malpractice awards to $500,000 violated the open courts provision of the Texas constitution).

(n377) See Manzer, supra note 202, at 637-38 and nn..57, 61 & 62 (citing statutes from Alaska, Michigan, and Washington).

(n378) Id.

(n379) CAT. CIV. CODE, Section 3333.2 (West Supp. 1986). Put See MINN. STAT. Section 549.23 (1988) (defining "intangible loss" to mean "embarrassment, emotional distress, and loss of consortium," but not "pain, disability, or disfigurement").

(n380) See Lucas v. United States, 757 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Text 1988) (noting that at least "thirteen states other than Texas have enacted damage limitation provisions into their medical malpractice statutes" and citing 10 eases challenging those statutes).

(n381) See, e.g., Wright v. Central DuPage Hosp. Ass'n, 347 N.E.2d 736 (Ill. 1976) ($500,000 cap constituted "special law" in violation of Illinois Constitution); Johnson v. St. Vincent Hosp., 404 N.E.2d 585 ($500,000 cap does not constitute a special privilege or immunity).

86

Document info
Document views239
Page views239
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 12:12:47 UTC 2016
Pages90
Paragraphs870
Words44164

Comments