Opinion ID: 1800270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Recovery Against the Patient's Compensation Fund.

Text: For damages other than future medical care and related benefits, the $400,000 limitation on recovery from the Patient's Compensation Fund is a valid restriction. As the Supreme Court of Kansas observed: Because the Fund is a state-run insurance company, the State is free to limit its liability in any amount it wishes. The issue presented here is one of limiting the liability of a tortfeasor, namely the negligent health care provider. Kansas Malpractice Victims v. Bell, 243 Kan. 333, 757 P.2d 251, 256 (1988) (emphasis added). [9] The legislature had the power to establish the fund and provide a supplemental recovery for those more seriously injured by medical malpractice. This affirmative act is not subject to the Sibley constitutional analysis. The fund is not a negligent party and does not have the status of an Article 2315 defendant. Thus, there is no constitutional infirmity in the state's providing for payment of $400,000 in damages to plaintiff on behalf of his minor son, and plaintiff has no constitutional claim for a greater amount. See Prendergast v. Nelson, 199 Neb. 97, 256 N.W.2d 657 (1977).