Opinion ID: 1787098
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: National Data

Text: ś 256. Third, the majority cites a national study, the Weiss Ratings, presented by the Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers (WATL). [22] This report, according to WATL, showed the lack of any connection between noneconomic damage caps, plaintiffs' awards, and malpractice premiums. However, this case is not about whether all caps, or even all caps on noneconomic damages, are constitutionally permissible. The question ... is a narrow one: Is the $350,000 cap ... on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases set forth in Wis. Stat. §§ 655.017 and 893.55(4)(d) constitutional? Majority op., ś 13. ś 257. The Weiss report draws two broad conclusions. The first conclusion is that noneconomic damage caps are not holding down damage awards; for example, the median award in Wisconsin increased over 180% between 1991 and 2002, from about $90,000 to about $256,000. [23] However, it should be obvious that a cap will not effect a reduction in the median award until the median award becomes greater than the cap amount. As the cap amount, adjusted for inflation, is currently $445,755, it would be impossible for the cap to reduce the median award of about $256,000. [24] A cap has the effect of reducing only the awards that are above the cap amount. Accordingly, the amount of the median payout is simply irrelevant. ś 258. Similarly, the majority cites a study from the General Accounting Office. As it did with the report by the Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance, the majority is forced to twist the GAO's blunt conclusion that malpractice claims tended to be lower and grew less rapidly in states with noneconomic damage caps. [25] The majority's wordplay again reveals its disregard for any evidence supporting the legislature's action, in direct contradiction to hortatory statements elsewhere in the opinion. ś 259. In summary, [c]aps on awards ... have had significant effects, in the direction and magnitude that is consistent with theory, prior evidence, and common sense.  Patricia M. Danzon, The Effects of Tort Reforms on the Frequency and Severity of Medical Malpractice Claims, 48 Ohio St. L.J. 413, 417 (1987) (emphasis added). I agree with the Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance and with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that the noneconomic damage cap helps control medical malpractice damage awards and creates a stable legal environment. [26] Accordingly, I disagree with the majority that there is no rational connection between 1995 Act 10's enactment of a cap and the size of damage awards.