Opinion ID: 1697232
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the definition of net

Text: Section 766.207(7)(a), Florida Statutes, provides for an award of net economic damages. Economic damages are defined in section 766.202(3). The relevant section states: Economic damages means financial losses which would not have occurred but for the injury giving rise to the cause of action, including, but not limited to, past and future medical expenses and 80 percent of wage loss and loss of earning capacity. § 766.202(3), Fla. Stat. (2002). The Medical Malpractice Act does not define net economic damages or the term net. The majority holds that in addition to noneconomic damages and an economic damage award for past and future lost services, Mrs. Barlow should also receive the full amount of the difference between the social security benefits that her husband was receiving while he was alive and the survivor benefits that she now receives. [5] This difference amounts to approximately $5000 per annum. Ignoring what the social security system and other retirement programs recognize, the majority gives Mrs. Barlow more than the net economic damages she suffered. Along with the reduction in social security benefits her husband brought into the home, Mrs. Barlow's total household expenses are reduced by the amount that Mr. Barlow no longer consumes. Therefore, to properly measure net economic damages in this case, this reduction in total household expenses must be deducted in some manner from the difference between the social security benefits Mr. Barlow once brought into the home to support both him and his spouse and the survivor's benefits Mrs. Barlow now receives. Mrs. Barlow's argument, which the majority accepts, that she should receive the full amount of the lost social security benefits as a financial loss [ ] which would not have occurred but for the injury giving rise to the cause of action, § 766.202(3), Fla. Stat., without consideration of how much this amount should be reduced to produce a net financial loss, essentially reads the word net out of the statute. This position violates a cardinal rule of statutory construction. It is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that courts should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless. Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So.2d 452, 456 (Fla.1992). By accepting Mrs. Barlow's argument, the majority renders the express statutory limitation on economic damages meaningless and thus reaches the wrong result. The majority reaches this incorrect conclusion as a direct result of its unwillingness to look to the Wrongful Death Act for guidance. By looking to the guidelines provided in the Wrongful Death Act, the meaning of the term net economic damages is easily interpreted.