I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - I A- 0 0 6 7 5 - S CT TH E ESTATE O F STACE Y KA Y KLA US BY ALTA KLA US, ADM

I NI S TRA TRI

X AND ALTA KLA US A S P E R S O N

A L R E P R E S E N T

A T I V E OF TH E W RO NGF UL DEA T

H B E NE F

I C I A R I E S OF S T AC EY KA Y K L AU S
v. VICKS BURG H

EAL THCARE, LL C d

/ b / a RI VER RE GION HE

AL T H S YS T EMS , RI VER R EG

ION M ED ICA L C O RP O RA TIO N , TR I AD H O SPI TA LS, I NC . , S T EP HANI E V AN DERF OR D, R. N. , AN

D EU GENE FERR I

S , I I I , M . D. D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 04/ 2006 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. F RA NK G. VOL L OR COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ARREN COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN TS: J ERRY CA M PBELL AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : KR I S T OP HE R A L AN GR AHAM S T UAR T BR AGG HA RMON R. E. P ARKER, S R. C L IF F O R D C . W H IT N E Y , III NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D A N D R E M A N D E D - 11/ 29/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. I n thi s i nt er l ocut ory appea l , the C our t i s as ked t o addr es s the l egi s l at i vel y- i ns t i tut ed cap on non- economi c damages f ound i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 11- 1- 60( 2) ( a) ( Supp. 2007) and i t s ef f ect , vel non, on the w r ongf ul
- death s t atut e, i . e. , M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 1 1 -7-1 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ).

### Subsequently jo inedbythe o ther App ellees. 1 

### 2 FACTS ¶ 2 . S t a c e y Ka y Kl a u s ( “ S t a c e y ” ) d i e d f o l l o wi n g s u r g e ry a tRi v e rRe g i o n Ho s p i t a l . On J ul y 18, 2005, St ace y’ s m other , A l t a, f i l ed a m edica l m al pr act i ce c om pl ai ntagai ns tt he A p p ell ee s in the C ir cu itC o u rto f W arren C o u n ty, M issi ssipp i, as A d m inistratri x o f S tace y ’s
e s ta te a n d “ a s p e rs o n a l r e p re s e n ta tiv e o f t h e w ro n g fu l- d e a th b e n e fi c ia ri e s o f [ S ta c e y ] . . . .” S tace y ’s w ron g ful-de ath b en eficiari es (“K laus es” ) are A lt a; he r f athe r, S y lvain ; an d h er h alfs i s t er , M ar i an. ¶3 . Subse quent l y, the Kl a us e s f i l e d a “ M ot i on f

orD ecl ar at or y J udgm ent ” i n t he t r i al
court , s t at i ng: 2 . U n d er M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1-6 0 , no n -ec o n o m ic da m ag es are l im it ed to $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 fo r “ th e p la in tif f.” 3 . T h is w ron g ful d ea th c laim ac tually h as th ree p lai n ti ffs be ing the m o ther, fa th e r a n d h a lf-sis ter . A lth o u g h b y sta tu te e a c h p lain tiff m u st s h a re e q u a lly in any aw ar d, eac h pl ai nt i f f has a s epar at e cl ai m f

ordama ges incurr ed f

orthe d e a th o f [S ta c e y ] b e c a u s e e a c h p la in tif f h a s a d if

fe re n t r e la tio n s h ip w ith [h e r]. 4. T he r i ght s of

eac h benef

i ci ary pl ai nt i f

f i s af f ect ed by M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 60. [ T he K l aus es ] pur s uantt o R ul e 57 M . R . C . P. s eeks a decl ar at i on f r om thi s Cour t , de ci di ng w hether each p laint i f f’s no n-econ om i c da m ag es are l i m i t ed to $500, 000. 00 orthe s ui t ’s t otalnon- econom i c dam ages ar e l i m i t ed t o $500, 000. 00 . ( E m phas i s added) . D r . E ugene Ferr i s f i l ed hi s R es pons e t o thatm ot i on, ar gui ng that“the 1 noneconomi c damages of al l of the w r ongf

ul death benef

i ci ar i es of

[ St ace y] , i n the a gg r egat e, a re c a p p e d a t th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m o f $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 u n d e r M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1 -6 0 .” Fol l ow i ng hear i ng, the ci r cui tcourtent er ed a “ D ecl ar at ory J udgm ent ” f i ndi ng that“the l i m i t at i on on no n-econ om i c dam ages i n 1 1-1-60(2)( a) t o $ 50 0, 00 0. 00 app l i es t o thi s cause

### 3

o f a c tio n re g a rd les s o f th e n u m b e r o f b e n e fic iar ies .” T h is C o u rt g ra n ted th e K lau se s’ tim e ly p e titio n fo r i n te rl o c u to ry a p p e a l. See M . R . A . P. 5. I S S UE ¶4 . T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: ( 1) D oes M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 11- 1- 60( 2) ( a) l i m i tnoneconomi c damages t o $500, 000 f oral l w r ongf

ul death benef

i ci ar i es and the es t at e i n an ac t i on f

orm edi cal m al pr act i ce?

A N A L Y S IS ¶5. A s this i nter l ocu t ory appe al i nv olves “a ques ti o n o f l aw an d interpre tat ion o f a s t atut e[ , ] . . . the s t andar d of r evi ew i s de novo. ” Mis s . D ep’t of Transp. v. A l

lr ed , 928 So. 2d 152, 154 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng Cooperv. Cr abb , 5 8 7 S o . 2 d 2 3 6 , 2 3 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 1 )). T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t: [i ] n co n side ri n g a statute p asse d b y the leg isl ature , . . . th e fi rstqu esti o n a c o u rt s houl d deci de i s w hetherthe s t atut e i s ambi guous . I f i ti s notambi guous , the c o u rt sh o u ld sim p ly ap p ly the sta tu te ac c o rd in g to its p lain m e a n in g a n d sh o u ld notus e pr i nci pl es of

s t atut ory c ons truct i on. W hetherthe s t atut e i s ambi guous ornot , t he ul t i m at e goal of thi s C our ti s t o di s cern and gi ve ef f ectt o the leg isla tiv e in ten t. Cit y of N atchezv. Sulli van , 6 1 2 S o . 2 d 1 0 8 7 , 1 0 8 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶ 6 . M iss iss ip p i C o d e A n n o tate d S e c tio n 1 1 -1 -6 0 (2 )(a ) p ro v id e s th a t: [ i ] n any ca us e of

act i on f i l ed on oraf

t erSept ember1, 2004, f or i nj ury bas ed on m al pr act i ce orbr eac h of s t andar d of

c ar e aga i ns ta pr ovi derof heal th car e, i ncl udi ng i ns t i tut i ons f

orthe age d ori nf

i r m , i n the eve ntthe tr i erof f actf i nds the def endantl i abl e, they s hal l notaw ar d th e p la in tif f more than Fi ve H undr ed T ho usand D oll ars ($500 , 00 0. 00 ) f or non econ om i c dam ages. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 60( 2)( a) ( Supp. 2007) ( emphasi s added) . I n pert i nentpart , the
w ro n g fu l-d e a th sta tu te a u th o riz e s th a t:

### 4

[ t ] he ac t i on for such damages m ay be br oughti n the name of the per s onal r epr es ent at i ve of

the dec eas ed per s on . . . fort he bene f i tof al l per s ons ent i t l ed underthe l aw t o re cover , . . . or by the par entf orthe dea th of

a chi l d, . . . orby a sis ter fo r th e d e a th o f a sis ter , . . . o r a ll p a rties in ter e ste d m a y jo in in th e su it, and ther e shal lbe butone ( 1) sui tf orthe sam e death w hi ch shal lensue f orthe benef i tof allp art i es conce r ned, butthe deter m i nat i on of s uch s ui ts hal lnot b a r a n o th e r a c tio n u n les s it b e d e c ide d o n th e m e rits . E xcep tas ot herw i se p ro v id e d in S e c tio n 1 1 -1 -6 9 , in s u c h a c tio n th e p a rty o r p a rties su in g sh a ll re c o v e r su c h d a m a g e s a llo w a b le b y law a s th e ju ry m a y d e ter m in e to b e ju st, tak in g in to c o n sid e ra tio n a ll th e d a m a g e s o f e v e ry k in d to th e d e c e d e n t a n d a ll d a m a g e s o f e v e ry k in d to a n y a n d a ll p a rties in ter e ste d in th e su it. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -7-1 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶7 . T he K l a us e s a r gu e tha tthe s e tw o s t atut es , r ead t oget her , cr eat e an ambi gui t y. Speci f i cal l y, they mai nt ai n thatthe “s hal l notaw ard t he pl ai nt i f f m or e than Fi ve H undr ed T hous and ( $500, 000. 00) f ornoneconomi c damages ” l angu age of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A n n o tate d S e c tio n 1 1 -1 -6 0 (2 )(a ) is in c o n g ru e n t w ith th e fa c t th a t, un d e r th e w ro n g fu l-d e a th
s t atut e of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nn ot a t e d Se c t i on 11
- 7- 13 , mul t i pl e pl ai nt i f f s m ay have s t andi ng t o f i l e s ui t . T he A ppel l ees r es pond that“[ w ] r ongf ul death act i ons ar e, i nher ent l y, der i vat i ve”
a n d , the re fo re , “a n y d e fe n se w h ic h w o u ld h a v e b e e n a v a ilab le a g a in st th e d e c e a se d , is avai l abl e agai ns tthe w r ongf ul death benef

i ci ar i es . ” See L ee v. T

hom ps on , 859 So. 2d 981, 987 ( M i s s . 2003) . T her ef or e, the A ppel l ees argue that“the pl ai n l anguage of § 11- 1- 60
es t abl i s hes thatthe cap appl i es t o the t ot al amount of r ecove r abl e damages and thati ti s not
m ul t i pl i ed by the numberof part i es i nvol ved. ” F urtherm or e, the A ppel l ees as s ertt hat f ol l ow i ng thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n A l lr ed , M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 11- 1- 60,

“ w hen r ead in p a ri m a ter ia w i th §§ 1- 3- 1 and 1- 3- 33, appl i es r egar dl es s of the numberof p la in tif fs .” ¶8. I n A l

lr ed , this C o u rtad d resse d the q u esti o n o f:

### Mississip pi C od e Anno tated S ection11 -46 -15 (1)(a) states, inpertin ent p art, that: 2 

### (1) In anyclaim or suit for damag es a g ai nst a govern men tal en tity or its employe ebrou ght und er the prov isio ns of th is ch ap ter, theliabilit y s hall not exceed th e follo wing fo r all cla ims a rising ou t of a single o ccurren ce for a ll damagesper

mitte d under

thi s c hapte r : (a) For cl ai ms or caus es of action aris ing f rom ac ts or om is si ons oc cur

ring on or a ft er July 1, 1993, thesum

of Fif tyThousand Dollar

s ( $50,000. 00) . Mis s. Code Ann. § 11-46- 15(1) (a) ( Rev. 2002) ( em phas is adde d). 5 w hen mul t i pl e governm ental defend ants hav e been sued i n “s i ngl e occ urr ence ” j ur i s di ct i on s , s uc h a s M i s s i s s i pp i , do e s the l i m i t at i on of l i abi l i ty [ i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 11- 46- 15( 1) ( a) ] pr ovi de f orone maxi m um do l l ar 2 amount of

l i abi l i ty f

ora s i ngl e t o rt i ou s act , r egar dl es s of the numberof g o v e rn m e n tal e n tit ies su e d , o r d o e s th e m a x im u m d o llar a m o u n t o f l ia b ility a p p ly se p a ra tely to e a c h g o v e rn m e n tal e n tity d e fe n d a n t? A l lr ed , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 5 4 . In re sp o n se to A llred ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 lim it i n M is s is s ip p i C o d e A n n o ta te d S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 5 (1 ) is to b e a p p lie d p e r p e rs o n , s ee id . at153, thi s C our tf

ound: M iss. C o d e A n n . S ec ti o n 1 -3-1 , stat es, “this ch ap ter i s ap p li ca b le t o ev ery s t atut e unl es s i t s gener al obj ect , orthe cont extof the l anguage cons trued, or otherpr ovi s i ons of

l aw i ndi cat e thata di f

f er entm eani ng or appl i cat i on w as i ntended fr om that requi red by this chapter . ” S pecif i cal l y p ert i nen ti n thi s case is M is s . C o d e A n n . S e c tio n 1 -3 -3 3 w h ic h sta te s , “ w or ds us ed i n the s i ngular num beronl

y, ei theras des cr i

pt i ve of pers ons orthi ngs , s hal lextend to and em br ace the pl ur alnum ber ; and w or ds us ed i n t he pl ur al num bers hal l ext end to a n d e m b ra c e th e s in g u la r n u m b e r, ex c e p t w h e re a c o n tra ry in ten tio n is m an i f est .” T he comm on m axi m i s t hats t atut es in p a r i m a ter ia ar e t o be cons trued t og et her. W hen a st atute i s in p a r i m a ter ia w ith a later o n e, i t i s sim p ly p art of i t s cont extt o be cons i der ed by the C our ti n deci di ng w hetherthe meani ng o f a p ro v isio n in th e late r sta tu te is p la in . See R u p e rt C ro s s , Stat utory I nt er pr etat i on 128 ( 1976) . A ppl yi ng M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 1 -3- 33 t o an anal ys i s of

the M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ct , i ti s abundant l y cl earthatthe A ct f ai l s t o m ani f

es t l y expr es s a cont r ary i nt ent i on, as r equi r ed by M i s s . C ode A nn.

### 6

S e c tio n 1 -3 -3 3 . T

h e L eg isla tu re h a d

th e o p p o rtu n ity to d e c la re th a t th e sta tu te atis s ue w as t o be r ead onl y i n the s i ngular, butdi d not
. A ddi t i onal l y, the Legis l ature di d notm ani f es t l y ex pr es s a contr ar

y i nt ent i on nott o i ncl ude pl ur allanguage i n i t

s D eclar at i on of

L egis lat i ve I

nt ent . Mis s . C ode A nn. § 11- 4 6 -3
. T h e L eg isla tu re h a d

the o p p o rtu n ity to m a n ifes t a n in ten t th a t th e sta tu te s hould be r ead onl

y i n the s i ngular ; how eve r, i tis cl earthe Legis lat ur e di d not do s o. Ther e bei ng no am bigui t y, the C our tis bound t o s i m pl y appl y the s tat ut es accordi ng t o thei rplai n m eani ng . A l lr ed , 928 So. 2d at155- 56 ( emphasi s added) . T her ef or e, thi s C ou rtco ncl uded that M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 1 1 -46 -15 (1) “ sh all b e interp reted b y u sing sing u lar or pl ur al l anguage . ” Id . at 15 6 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶9 . T h e le a rn e d c irc u it ju d g e d id n o t h a v e the b en efito f Allr ed w hen he ent er ed “D ecl ar at ory J udgm ent ” i n f avorof the A ppel l ees . N onethel es s , he corr ect l y obs erved that th e Kl a u s e s ’ “ a r g u me n tth a tth e u s e o f th e s i n g u l a rf

o r m o f ‘ p l a i n t i f f’ i n § 1 1
- 1
- 6 0 M CA
w oul d appl y t o eac h benef i ci ary, i ndi vi dual l y, i s notper s uas i ve . . . . ” J us tas i n A l lr ed ,

“ [t] h e L e g isla tu re h a d th e o p p o rtu n ity to d e c lar e th a t th e s tatu te a t iss u e w a s to b e re a d o n ly i n the si ng ular , bu tdid not. A dd i t i on al l y, the L egis l ature di d n ot m anif est l y ex press a contr ary i nt ent i on nott o i ncl ude pl ur al l anguage i n i t s D ecl ar at i on of L egi s l at i ve I nt ent . ” Id . A c c o rd in g ly , the sta tu te is to b e ap p lied ac c o rd in g to its p lain m e a n in g a n d “ th e p lain tiff” in M i ssi ssi pp i C od e A nn otat ed S ect i on 11 -1- 60 (2) (a) “shal l be int erpr et ed b y u si ng the si ngul ar orpl ur al l anguage ” w hen con si der ed i n par im at er i a w i th M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed S ec ti o n 1 -3-3 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶ 1 0 . W h ile a c k n o w led g in g th e re c titu d e o f th e m a jo rity v iew , sta tin g it“ is c o n sis ten t w ith the l egi s l at i ve purpos e behi nd Sec t i on 11- 1- 60” ( D i s s ent i ng O pi ni on a t¶21) , the di s s entt hen
m ul l s overthe pot ent i al uni nt ended cons equence s of the l egi s l at i ve ac tand conc l udes t hat

### 7

th e s e p o te n tia l u n

ju s t r e s u lt s w e re “ n o t f u lly ta k e n in to c o n s id e ra tio n b y th e L e g is la tu re .” (D i s s ent i ng O pi ni on at¶23) . I f per chanc e the Legi s l atur e s houl d s ubs cr i be t o these
a ss u m p ti o n s, itm ay am en d M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 1 1 -1-6 0 an d ex p ressly
m ani f es ta contra r y i nt ent i on t o the pl ai n l anguage of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 1 -3 -3 3 . See Mis s . E thi cs Com m ’n v. G r is ham , 957 So. 2d 997, 1003 ( M i s s . 2007) ( “[ t ] he pow ert o change thi s r es ul tl i es w i th the l egi s l atur e t o am end the st atut e. ”) . H ow ever , t he di s s ent ’ s s ugges t i on thatthi s C our ts houl d r edr es s the per cei ved l egi s l at i ve err orby j udi ci al fi at req u ir es a n ac t of j u d ici al ac ti v ism . T o p rop erly p rese rve the se p a ra tio n o f po w ers m a n d a te d b y th e M is s is s ip p i C o n s titu tio n , s ee M iss . C o n st. a rt. I, § § 1 -2 , this C o u rt sh o u ld
a c t w ith re s tr a in t. See G r is ham , 957 So. 2d at1003 ( “[ t ] he pr i vi l ege t o amend a s t atut e, not co n sti tuti o n all y infi rm , d o es n o t r est w ith this C o u rt . ”). CO NC L US I ON ¶1 1 . B y en ac ti n g M ississ ip p i C o d e A n n o tate d S e c tio n 1 1 -1 -6 0 (2 )(a), th e L eg isl ature e x p re s s ly in s titu te d a c a p o n n o n e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s re c o v e ra b le b y “ th e p la in tif f.” M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 1 -3-3 3 p rov ides that w o rds w ri tt en in the sing u lar are to b e re ad in the p lural. In li g h t of M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 1 -3-3 3 an d this C our t ’ s deci s i on i n A l

lr ed , the cap on non econ om i c dam ages app l i es t o p l ai nti ff or pl ai nti ff

s. T her ef or e, the cap on noneconomi c damages i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 11- 1- 60( 2) ( a) appl i es t o al l pl ai nt i f f s w ho br i ng a w r ongf

ul
- death act i on pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 11- 7- 13. A ccor di ngl y, the j udgm entof the C i r cui tC our tof

W arr en C ounty i s af

f i r m ed, a nd thi s c as e i s r emanded t o thatc our tf orf ur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t ent
w i th thi s opi ni on.U nderthe w r ongf ul death s t atut e, onl y one w r ongf ul death act i on m ay be br oughton 3 beh al f of al l t he w rongful death ben efi ci ari es: “[ T ] here sh all b e bu ton e (1) sui t . . . ” M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -7 -1 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ). B u t a w ro n g fu l d e a th a c tio n m a y b e b ro u g h t “b y a ll i nt er es t ed part i es , ” and “ al l part i es i nt er es t ed may j oi n the s ui t [ . ] ” I d. 

### 8 ¶12. AF F I RM ED AND RE M ANDE D. S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , EA S LE Y, CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON, AND LAM AR, J J . , CO NCU R. DI AZ , P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y G R A V E S, J.
DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 1 3 . “ In c o n sid e rin g a sta tu te p a ss e d b y th e leg isla tu re . . . th e firs t q u e stio n a c o u rt sh o u ld deci de i s w hetherthe s t atut e i s ambi guous . ” Cit y of N atchez , Mis s . v. Sulli van , 612 S o. 2d 1087, 1089 ( M i s s . 1992) . Sect i on 11- 1-60(2) ( a) pr ovi des i n pert i nentpart : “I n a ca us e of act i on f i l ed on oraf

t erSept ember1, 2004, . . . the tr i erof f act. . . s hal l notaw ar d th e p la in tif f
m ore than F i ve H un dred T ho usand D oll ars ($500 , 00 0) i n n on econ om i c dam ages. ” M i ss. C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 60( 2) ( a) ( Supp. 2007) ( emphasi s added) . W hen r ead a l one, thi s pr ovi s i on i s unambi guous : I tcaps the amountof noneconomi c damages a pl ai nt i f f can recov er i n a m edi cal m al pr act i ce a ct i on at $500, 000. H ow ever , Sect i on 11- 1- 60( 2) ( a) becomes
a m b ig u o u s w h e n c o n sid e re d in th e c o n tex t o f a w ro n g fu l d e a th ac tio n , w h e re o n e ac tio n is fr equ entl y fi l ed b y m ult i ple pl ai nti ff s. 3 ¶14. T he maj or i ty f

i nds the pr ovi s i on ati s s ue unambi guous a nd c ont ends thati t“i s t o be appl i ed ac cor di ng t o i t s pl ai n m eani ng[ . ] ” A ccor di ng t o t he maj or i ty, the pl ai n m eani ng of Sect i on 11- 1- 60( 2) ( a) i s thatthe noneconomi c damages c ap s etf or th i n thatpr ovi s i on appl i es to all w ron g ful d ea th b e n eficiari es in the a g g reg ate, r athe r th an to ea ch b en eficiary

### 9

i ndi vi dual l y. T he maj or i ty r eac hes thi s concl us i on by r eadi ng t he t erm “pl ai nt i f f ” i n i t s pl ur al f or m ( “pl ai nt i f

f s ”) i n acc or dance w i th M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 1- 3- 33 ( R ev. 2 0 0 5 ). ¶15. I agr ee thatt he t erm “pl ai nt i f f ” Sect i on 11- 1- 60( 2) ( a) m us tbe r ead i n both i t s s i ngul ar a n d p lu ra l fo rm b e c a u se the L e g isla tu re d id n o t ex p re ss a n in ten t th a t th e sta tu te b e re a d o n ly in th e sing u lar. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 -3-3 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 5 ). H o w ev er, ev en if o n e re ad s the term “pl ai nt i f f ” i n i t s pl ur al f

or m , the p l ai n m eani ng of Sect i on 11- 1- 60( 2) ( a) i s notthatt he
nonec on omi c da mage s c a p a pp l i e s t o a l l w r on gf ul de a th b e ne f

i c i a r i e s i n the a gg r e ga t e. W hen “pl ai nt i f

f s ” i s s ubs t i tut ed f

or“pl ai nt i f

f , ” the s t atut e r emai ns ambi guous : “the tr i erof f act. . . s hal l notaw ar d the pl ai nt i f f[ s ] m or e than Fi ve H undr ed T hous and D ol l ar s ( $500, 000) fo r n o n e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s.” M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1 -6 0 (2 )(a ) (R e v . 2 0 0 5 ). W h e n re a d in that form , the s tatu te ca n b e interp reted to m ea n eith er tha t plainti ffs can n o t r ec o v er m o re than a t ot al of $5 00 , 000 i n noneconomi c damages i n a w r ongf ul death act i on orthateac h p lain tiff in a w ro n g fu l d e a th a c tio n c a n n o t re c o v e r m o re th a n $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 in n o n e c o n o m ic dam ages. ¶1 6 . “W h ere statu tes are a m b igu o u s o r i n co n fl ictw ith o n e a n o ther, i t i s p rop er to res o rt t o the rul es of

s t atut ory cons truct i on. ” Mis s . G a m in gC o m m ’n v . I m p e r ia l P a la c e o

f Mis s ., I nc. , 7 5 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 5 , 1 0 2 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ). “T h e p rim a ry ru le o f c o n stru c tio n is to a sc e rta in th e in te n t o f t h e le g is la tu re f ro m th e s ta tu te a s a w h o le a n d f ro m th e la n g u a g e u s e d th e re in .” Clark v. S tate ex rel. Miss. S tate Med . A ss’n , 3 8 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 4 8 (M is s . 1 9 8 0 ). ¶17. T he i nt entof

the L egi s l atur e i n e nact i ng Sec t i on 11- 1- 60 i s e xpl i ci t l y s t at ed in t he st atute: “Iti s the int ent of this sect i on t o li m i tal l no neco no m i c dam ages to the ab ov e. ” M i ss.

### 10

C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 60 ( Supp. 2007) . B as ed on a pl ai n r eadi ng of the s t atut e, i ti s cl eart hat the Legi s l atur e i nt ended t o cap the am ountof nonec onom i c dam ages t hatcoul d be r ecove r ed by a s i ng l e p l ai nti f

f i n a s i ngl e medi cal m al pr act i ce c aus e of act i on. H ow ever , i ti s not appar entthatthe Legi s l atur e i nt ended t o cap the t ot al amount of noneconomi c damages t hat coul d be r ecove r ed by mul t i pl e pl ai nti f f s i n a w r ongf

ul death act i on pr emi s ed on medi cal
m al pr act i ce a t$500, 000. ¶1 8. W hen t he L e gi s l a tur e ha s i nt e nd e d t o p l a c e a c a p o n p l a i nt i f f s ’ da mage s i n the aggr egat e i n othercont ext s , i thas done s o expl i ci t l y. Forexam ple, in M i ss i s s i ppi C ode A n n o tate d S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 5 (1 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ), a p ro v isio n o f th e M iss iss ip p i T o rt C laim s A c t, the Legi s l ature “es t abl i s h[ ed] a peroccurr ence cap on gove rnm ent al l i abi l i ty. ” A l lr ed v. Y arbor ough , 843 So. 2d 727, 730 ( M i s s . 2003) . S ect i on 11-46- 15( 1) pr ovi des i n pert i nent part : “I n any cl ai m ors ui tf orda m ages a gai ns ta gove rnm ent al e nt i ty ori t s empl oyee br ought
u n d er th e p rov isi o n s o f this ch ap ter, the li ab il ity sh all n o t exc ee d the fo ll o w ing for a l lc la i ms ari si ng ou tof a si ng l e occu rr ence for al l d am ages p erm i t t ed un der t his chap t er . . . . ” M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -1 5 (1 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 2 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶19. I ti s w el l
- s ett l ed that“the om i s s i on of l anguage f

r om a s i m i l arpr ovi s i on on a s i m i l ar s ubj ecti ndi cat es thatthe l egi s l atur e had a di f f er enti nt enti n enac t i ng the pr ovi s i ons , w hi ch i tm ani f es t ed by the om i s s i on of the l anguage . ” Cit

y of N atchez , 612 So. 2d at1089. T he f actthatSect i on 11- 1- 60( 2) ( a) does notcont ai n l anguage s i m i l art o thatof Sect i on 11- 46- 15( 1) , l i m i t i ng da m ages f ora l l c l ai m s a r i s i ng outof a s i ngl e occ urr ence ori nci dent , i ndi cat es th a t th e L e g isla tu re d id n o t in ten d fo r th e $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 n o n e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s c a p to a p p ly to al l cl ai m s ar i s i ng outof a s i ngl e ac tof

m edi cal m al pr act i ce.

### In f ac t, not m any l arge m edical malpra ctic e ve rdi ct s we rere tur ned in theperiod 4 

### pre ce ding t

he m ovem ent

for tort re for m. One s tudy f

ound that t

he num ber of m edi ca l ma lprac ti ceverdic ts exc ee ding onemil li on dollars average d one per year from 1995 t

hrough mid-2 0 0 2 . Neil V idmar an d L eighAnne B rown, To rt Refo rm a nd the M edica l Lia bility Ins uranc e Cris isin Mi

ss issi ppi: Diagnos ing t

he Di se aseand Presc ribing a Remedy , 22 Mis s. C. L. Rev. 9, 15- 20 (2002) (c oncluding t hat “there is n o evi denc e that Mis si ss ippi jurie s areout of

controlin m edi ca l m alprac ti ceca se s” ). By st ating t

hat today’s holding is cons is te nt wi th t he l egi sl ativepurpo se be hind 5 

### Sectio n 1 1-1 -60 , I do no t mean th at the majo rity’s ap plicatio n o f Sectio n 1 1-1 -60 (2)(a) is correct inanyregard . I am no t “valid ating ” the majo rity’s “an alysis” at all. I am simp ly st ating t he obvious : Applying Section 11-1- 60(2) (a) per medi ca l ma lprac ti ceinci dent in the aggr egate , a s the m aj ori ty doe s, is cons is te nt wi th t he s tatut e’ s l egi sl ativepurposeof li mi ting 11 ¶20. “[ I ] n det erm i ni ng the l egi s l at i ve i nt ent , [ the C our t ] m ay l ook notonl y t o the l anguage us ed [ i n the s t atut e] butal s o t o [ the s t atut e’ s ] hi s t or i cal backgr ound, i t s s ubj ectm att er , and the purpos es and obj ect s t o be ac compl i s hed. ” Clark , 381 So. 2d at1048. Sect i on 11- 1- 60
was p a s s e d i n th e s p e c i a l s e s s i o n o f th e M i s s i s s i p p i Le g i s l a tu r e on t or tr e f o r m i n 2 0 0 2 . E. F a ri s h P e rc y , C h e c k in gU p o n th e Me d ica l M

a lp ra c tice L ia b ili ty I

n su ra n c e C ris is in Mis s is s i ppi : A r e Addi t i onalR ef or m s the C ur e? , 73 M i s s . L . J . 1001, 1002 ( 2004). T he ul t i m at e purpos e of

Sect i on 11-1- 60 w as t o al l evi at e the per cei ved medi cal m al pr act i ce lia b ility in s u ra n c e c ri s is in M is s is s ip p i. See i d. at1001-1003, 1034-37. Speci f i cal l y, Sect i on 11- 1- 60 w as de s i gned t o puta n e nd t o e xces s i ve damage a w ar ds i n medi cal m al prac t i ce c a se s, w h ich , in tu rn , w o u ld h e lp b rin g d o w n th e c o st o f m e d ica l m a lp ra c tice in su ra n c e in

4 th e s ta te . S e e id
. at1036 n. 126. ¶ 2 1 . A lth o u g h th e m a jo rity ’s h o ld in g th a t S e c tio n 1 1 -1 -6 0 (2 )(a ) lim its n o n e c o n o m ic damages perm edi cal mal pr act i ce i nci denti n the aggr egat e i s cons i s t entw i th the l egi s l at i ve purpos e behi nd Secti on 1 1- 1- 60, I bel i eve the hol di ng w i l l have r ami f i cat i ons thatt he L e g isla tu re d id n o t in ten d . “ U n th o u g h t o f re su lts m u st b e a v o id e d if p o ss ib le, e sp e c ially 5

### the amo unt of n on econ omic damag es aw ardedin med ical malpractice case s becau se it will

limi t t he amount

of none conom ic dam age s awarded in me dic alma lprac ti ceca se s. Of c our s e, the co nstru ctionof the statute that I adv ocate is also con sistent w ith th e legislativ e purpo se behind thest at

ute . Theultim at e que stion i s not whether a partic ular a

ppli cati on of Se ction 11-1- 60(2) (a) i s c onsi st ent with thegene ra l pur

poseof the st at

ute , but whe the r i t e ff

ec tuate s theintent of the Le gis lature. In my vie w, thema jorit y’s appl ic ation of

Sec ti on 11-1- 60(2) (a) in t his ca sedoes not e ff

ec tuatetheint ent o f theLegi sl at ure . Ac cordingly, Ido not ackn ow ledg e the “rectitu de” o f the h old ing in th is case. As di sc uss ed infra, the reis no thin g “pote nti al ” a bout t he unj ust re sults of t oday’ s 6 

### dec is ion, contra

ry t o thema

jorit y’s as se rtion. A s a r es ul tof

the hol di ng i n t oday’ s cas e, i n w r ongf ul death cas es notpre m i s ed on 7 m edi cal m al pr act i ce, the bene f i ci ar i es w i l l notbe f

ul l y compensa t ed i f

a j ury det erm i nes t hat the nonec on om i c damages exce ed $1, 000, 000. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 60( 2) ( b) ( Supp. 2 0 0 7 ). 

### 12 i f i nj us t i ce f

ol l ow s , and unw i s e purpos e w i l l notbe i m put ed t o the Legi s l atur e w hen a
r eas onabl e cons truct i on i s pos s i bl e. ” McMullen v. State ex r el . A lexander , 217 M i s s . 256, 271, 63 So. 2d 856, 861 ( 1953) ( i nt ernal q uot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . M any “unthoughtof

[ and unj us t ] r es ul t s ” w i l l f l ow f r om t oday’ s hol di ng. 6 ¶22. Fi r s t , w r ongf

ul d eat h benef

i ci ar i es w ho ar e mem ber s of s m al l ercl as s es of bene f i c i a r i e s wi l l r e c e i ve mor e d a mage s f orthe i rc l a i ms f

orl os s o f

s oc i e ty a nd
c o m p a n io n sh ip th a n b e n e fic iar ies w h o b e lo n g to lar g e r c las se s. S e c o n d , in w ro n g fu l d e a th
cas es w her e the j ury det erm i nes thatthe dec edent ’ s pai n and s uf f er i ng b et w een i nj ury and d e a th a n d th e w ro n g fu l d e a th b e n e fic iar ies ’ c laim s fo r lo ss o f so c iety a n d c o m p a n io n sh ip
w a rra n t an a w a rd o f d a m a g e s in e x c e ss o f $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 , the b e n e fic iar ies w ill n o t b e fu lly compensa t ed f

orthe dec edent ’ s pai n and s uf f er i ng orthei rl oss of s oci ety and compani ons hi p. T hi r d, t oday’ s hol di ng w i l l af f ectm edi cal m al pr act i ce ca s es noti nvol vi ng 7
w ron g ful d ea th. A m arried c o u p le th at bring s a m ed ical m alpra cti ce ac ti o n co n sist ing o f aT his w i l l be the eff ectbecause i n a m edical m al pract i ce case i nv olvi ng a prim ary 8 p erso n al-i n

jury claim an d a los s-of-co n so rt ium claim , there is on e ca u se o f ac ti o n an d m o re th a n o n e p la in tif

f, a s in a w ro n g fu l d e a th a c tio n . See Choctaw , I nc. v. W i chner , 521 So. 2d 878, 881 ( M i s s . 1988) ( hol di ng thata cl ai m f orl os s of cons or t i um i s a der i vat i ve cl ai m , not an ind ep en d en t cau se o f ac ti o n ). 

### 13 per s onal
- i nj ury cl ai m and a c l ai m f orl os s o f cons or t i um w i l l notbe f ul l y compensa t ed i f

t he j ury det erm i nes thatthe i nj ur ed s pous e’ s damages f orpai n and s uf

f er i ng and the other
s pous e’ s damages f

orl os s of cons or t i um exce ed $500, 000. 8 ¶ 2 3 . I d o n o t be liev e the L e g isla tu re inte n d e d fo r th e n o n e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s c a p se t fo rth i n S ect i on 11- 1- 60( 2) ( a) t o pr oduce s uch unj us tr es ul t s . T hi s C our thas not ed thatt he L e g isla tu re d id n o t co n tem p late th e im p a c t t h a t th e to rt re fo rm m e a su re s it e n a c ted w o u ld have on the w r ongf

ul death st atut e: “T he L egi s l atur e cl ear l y m ade m aj orre f or m s i n var i ous s t atut es dur i ng r ece nts e s s i on s w hi ch i ncl uded pas s i ng M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nn. Sect i on 11- 11- 3( 3) . H ow ever , i ti s equal l y cl earthatthe w r ongf ul death s t atut e, Sect i on 11- 7- 13, w as not co n side red co n ce rnin g ev en ts an d m u lt iple d efe n d an t do ctors su ch as w h at w e h av e b efo re us now , w hen t hes e change s i n var i ous st atut es w her e made. ” Ros e v. Bolog na , 942 So. 2d 1 2 8 7 , 1 2 9 0 (¶ 9 ) (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ). C le a rl y , the im p a c t th a t S e c tio n 1 1 -1 -6 0 c o u ld p o ten tially have on t he w r ongf

ul death st atut e w as notf ul l y t aken i nt o cons i der at i on by the Legi s l atur e. ¶24. “The purpos es of the w r ongf

ul de ath s t atut e ar e t o pr eventthe w r ongf ul t erm i nat i on of l i f e and pr ovi de the bene f i ci ary w i th compensa t i on f or t he l os s of

compani ons hi p and
s oci ety of

the dec eas ed, the pai n and suf f er i ng of the dece as ed betw een i nj ury and dea th, and puni t i ve damages . ” 66 Fed. Cr edit U ni on v. Tucker , 85 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 , 1 0 9 -10 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 );
s ee als o M i s s . C ode A nn . § 1 1-7- 13 ( R ev. 2004) ( “the party orpart i es s ui ng s hal l r ecove r

### 14

su ch da m ag es allow ab le by l aw as th e jury m ay de term ine to b e just, t ak ing in to cons i der at i on al lthe dam ages of eve r y ki nd t o the dec edent

and al ldam ages of

eve r y ki nd to a ny a n d

a ll p a rtie s in ter e ste d

in th e su it ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T o h o ld tha t th e L eg isl ature in ten d e d fo r th e n o n e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s c a p o n m e d ic a l m a lp ra c tice a c tio n s to a p p ly to
w r ongf ul death benef

i ci ar i es i n the aggr egat e, w oul d m ean t hatthe Legi s l atur e ena ct ed Sect i on 11- 1- 60 i n di r ectcontr avent i on of one of the purpos es of

the w r ongf

ul death s t atut e: to fu lly c o m p e n sa te a ll b e n e fic iar ies fo r th e ir lo ss o f so c iety a n d c o m p a n io n sh ip a n d th e p a in and suf f er i ng of the dece dent . T hi s C our ts houl d noti m put e s uch an unw i s e purpos e t o t he L egi s l atur e, e s peci al l y w hen a r eas onabl e cons truct i on of the s t atut e thatdoes notpr oduce
u n ju s t r e s u lts is p o s s ib le . McMullen , 63 So. 2d at861. ¶2 5 . C o n stru ing S ec ti o n 1 1 -1-6 0 (2)(a) to a p p ly to e ac h w ron g ful d ea th b en eficiary
s epar at el y, r atherthan i n t he aggr egat e, pr event s thatpr ovi s i on f r om abr ogat i ng an es s ent i al partof the w r ongf

ul death s t atut e. Fur ther , s uch a c ons truct i on gi ves ef f ectt o t he L e g is la tu re ’s in ten t in e n a c tin g S e c tio n 1 1 -1 -6 0

– lim iti n g th e a m o u n t o f n o n e c o n o m ic damages aw ar ded i n m edi c a l mal pr a ct i ce c as es –beca us e ea ch bene f i ci ary w i l l notbe al l ow ed to rec o v er m o re tha n $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 in n o n ec o n o m ic da m ag es. T h is ap p roa ch d o es n o t sub v ert the cap cr eat ed by the Legi s l atur e. R at her, i tbal ance s the Legi s l atur e’ s goal of pr ot ect i ng the hea l th car e i nd ust ry w i th the mandat e of the w r ongf

ul death s t atut e thatal l w r ongf ul death benef

i ci ar i es be f

ul l y compensa t ed f

ort hei rcl ai m s . A ccor di ngl y, I w oul d hol d thatt he

### The m aj ori ty cl ai ms that my propose d c onstruc ti on of Se ction 11-1- 60(2)(a) is 9 

### int ende d to “ cor

re ct [ a] pe rc ei ved le gis lative er ror by judi ci alfi at ,”and woul d cons ti tut e an “act of ju dicial activ ism.” Th e majorityis mistaken . I am no t atte mp ti n g t o c orrect a le gis lative er

ror ; rather , Iam

se eking to di sc over

theint ent

of the Le gis lature in ena cting Sec ti on 11-1- 60(2) (a) and apply it ac cordingly. Af

te r c onstruing thest at

ute , unlik e the ma jorit y, Ifind that t

he Le gis lature di d not inte nd for Sec ti on 11-1- 60(2) (a) t o ca p thetot al am ount of noneconom ic dam age s that can be r ec over ed in a wrongfuldeath a ction at $5 00 ,00 0. A ccord ing ly, mycon clusio n is th e op po site of ju dicial activ ism. 15 n o n e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s c a p se t fo rth in S e c tio n 1 1 -1 -6 0 (2 )(a ) a p p lies to e a c h w ro n g fu l d e a th benef i ci ary i ndi vi dual l y. 9 ¶2 6 . T h e S u p rem e C o u rto f F lori d a re ac h ed th e sa m e c o n clus ion w h en fac ed w ith a v ery s im ila r i s s u e . St

. Mar y’s Hos p. , Inc. v. P hil

li pe , 769 So. 2d 961, 967- 71 ( Fl a. 2000) . I n t hat
c a se th e c o u rt w a s p re s e n te d w ith th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r th e $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 n o n e c o n o m ic damages cap i n the arbi tr at i on pr ovi s i ons of Fl or i da ’ s M a l pr a ct i ce A ctappl i ed t o al l w r ongf ul d e a th c la im a n ts in th e a g g re g a te o r to e a c h c la im a n t i n d iv id u a lly . I d. at967. T he pr ovi s i on i n q uest i on reads as f

oll ow s: N oneconomi c damages s hal l be l i m i t ed t o a maxi m um of $250, 000 per in c ide n t, a n d sh a ll b e ca lcu late d o n a p e rc e n tag e b a sis w ith re sp e c t to c a p a c ity t o enj oy l i f

e, s o thata f

i ndi ng thatthe c la im a n t's i nj ur i es r es ult ed i n a 50- per centr educt i on i n his orherc ap ac ity to en joy li fe w o u ld w arran t an a w ard of not m ore than $1 25 , 00 0 n on econ om i c dam ages. F la. S tat . § 7 6 6 . 2 0 7 (7)(b ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 2 7 . T h e c o u rt a c k n o w led g e d th a t th e p ro v isio n sta ted th a t “n o n e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s s h a ll be l i m i t ed t o a maxi m um of $ 250, 000 pe ri nci dent , ” b utconcl uded thatthe us e of the
s in g u la r “ c la im a n t” m a d e th e p ro v is io n a m b ig u o u s . P hil li pe , 76 9 S o. 2d at96 8. B ecause the s t atut e w as ambi guous , the cour tpr ocee ded t o “l ook t o the l egi s l at i ve i nt entf or gui dance . ” I

d. Itde term ined th at th e n o n ec o n o m ic da m ag es ca p p rov ided “li ab il ity insu rers

### 16

w i th the abi l i ty to i m prove the predi ct abil i ty o f the o utcom e of cl ai m s forthe p urpose o f l oss pl anni ng i n r i s k as s es s m entf orpr emi um purpos es . ” I d . a t 9 7 0 . ¶28. A f

t erdi s cerni ng t he l egi s l at i ve i nt ent , the court“concl ud e[ d] tha tthe cap on noneconomi c damages appl i es t o eac h cl ai m anti ndivi dual l y. ” I d. at 97 2 . T h e c o u rt ex p lai n ed it s rea so n ing as fo llow s: “[ I] n o rde r for the asse ssm en t of a su rviv o r’s
n o n e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s to b e eq u itab le, e a c h su rv iv o r’s los s m u st b e in d e p e n d e n tly det erm i ned. M or eover , the l os s of a s ur vi vor[ s houl d] not[ be] di m i ni s hed by t he mer e f act thatther e ar e mul t i pl e s ur vi vor s . ” I d . at971. T he courta l s o de t erm i ned thati t s hol di ng w as cons i s t entw i th t he purpos e of the arbi tr at i on pr ovi s i on: S u c h a n i n t e rp r e t a t i o n wo u l d p r o v i d e i n c r e a s e d p r e d i c t a b i l i ty i n th e o u t c o me o f th e cla im s a s th e ins u re rs w o u ld n o lon g e r b e co n ten d in g w ith th e p o ss ib ili ty of exorbi t antnoneconomi c dam age a w ar ds butw oul d have a f i xed dol l ar am o u n t ( $ 25 0, 00 0 ), w h ich e ac h claim an t' s aw ard co u ld n o t exc ee d . M o reo v er, thi s i nt erpr et at i on does m or e t o pr om ot e ea r l y r e s ol ut i on of medi cal negl i gence cl ai m s , as i tpr ovi des an equi t abl e r es ul tw hi ch w i l l i n turn furtherencour age cl ai m ant s t o s eek r es ol ut i on thr ough arbi tr at i on. I d. a t 9 7 0 . In a d d iti o n , the c o u rt ac k n o w led g e d th a t “w e re w e to in terp re t th e n o n e c o n o m ic damages cap t o appl y t o al l cl ai m ant s i n the aggregat e, w e conc l ude thats uch an i nt erpr et at i on w oul d cr eat e equa l pr ot ect i on conce rns . ” I d. at971. ¶29. I f

i nd the Supr eme C our tof Fl or i da’ s anal ys i s and r eas oni ng t o be very per s uas i ve. I agr ee thateac h w r ong ful death benef i ci ary’ s noneconomi c damages m us tbe det erm i ned
s epar at el y i n or dert o be equi t abl e and thatthe r ecove ry of a bene f i ci ary s houl d notbe
r educe d by the exi s t ence of otherbenef

i ci ar i es . L i ke the Fl or i da Supr eme C our t , I concl ude thatappl yi ng the noneconomi c damages c ap perbe nef i ci ary i s c ons i s t entw i th the l egi s l at i ve

### I no t onlyhave equ al protectio n con cerns abo ut th e app licationof th e no neco no mic 10 

### dam age s ca

p on me dic alm alpra ctic e ac ti ons to wrongf ul death ca se s, but

I a ls o haveequa l prot ec ti on conc er

ns a bout theca

p it se lf . Se veralcourts havehel d that s uch a ca p viol at es the ir st at e’ s e qualprot ec ti on cla use . TheAla

bam a Suprem e Cour

t he ld t hat pla cing a c ap onno neco no mic damag es in med ical malpractice c as es “creates a f avo red class o f tortfe as ors , ba se d sol ely upon the ir connec ti on with hea lt

h care [. ] ” Mo ore v. M

ob ile Infirm ary Ass ’n , 59 2 S o. 2 d 1 56 , 16 6-6 7 (A la. 19 91 ); see also Cars on v. Maurer , 424 A. 2d 825, 940- 41 (N.H . 19 80 ), ov e rrule d on o t he r grou nd s by Cm ty. Re

s. for Just ice, Inc . v . Ci ty of Manche st er , 91 7 A .2d7 07 , 7 21 (N .H. 20 07 ). Becau se th is issu e was n ot raisedonapp eal, I will n ot ad dress it. 17 goal of l i m i t i ng heal th car e pr ovi der s ’ expos ur e t o l i abi l i ty. I al s o bel i eve thatthe hol di ng i n today’s case cr eat es equa l prot ect i on con cerns. 10 ¶30. Forthes e r eas ons , I w oul d hol d thatthe noneconomi c damages c ap of Sect i on 11- 1- 60( 2) ( a) appl i es t o eac h w r ongf ul de ath be nef

i ci ary i ndi vi dual l y, r ever s e the j udgm entof t he ci r cui tcourtand r emand t hi s cas e forfurtherpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thathol di ng. A c c o rd in g ly , I m u st re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. GRAVE S , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.