Raphael v. Shecter
18 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (September)
A patient suffered a heart attack and died while undergoing a heart transplant, and he alleged in a medical malpractice suit that this resulted from the failure to administer an anti-clotting drug. At the time, a statute in effect stated that a malpractice action may proceed to trial with no limitation on damages if the defendant refuses an offer of arbitration. At trial, the plaintiff won $9.5 million in non-economic damages. However, section 766.18(4) had been adopted after the incident in question in this case occurred. That statute limited non-economic damages to $150,000 per claimant or $300,000 per incident, and the legislature made clear that it was to have retroactive application. The defendant in this case moved to limit economic damages pursuant to this statute, and the trial court granted that motion. The district court reversed holding that the new statute inapplicable. It held that the retroactive application of that statute would affect the patient’s substantive rights, which is prohibited by constitutional due process.