Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title II Chapter 231
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 60H (2026)

Limitation of damages for pain and suffering

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 60H. In any action for malpractice, negligence, error, omission, mistake or the unauthorized rendering of professional services, other than actions brought under section two of chapter two hundred and twenty-nine, against a provider of health care, the court shall instruct the jury that in the event they find the defendant liable, they shall not award the plaintiff more than five hundred thousand dollars for pain and suffering, loss of companionship, embarrassment and other items of general damages unless the jury determines that there is a substantial or permanent loss or impairment of a bodily function or substantial disfigurement, or other special circumstances in the case which warrant a finding that imposition of such a limitation would deprive the plaintiff of just compensation for the injuries sustained. In any such action which is tried without a jury, the court shall not award the plaintiff more than five hundred thousand dollars for pain and suffering, loss of companionship, embarrassment and other items of general damages unless the aforesaid findings are made specially by the court and stated separately in the judgment entered by the court. Except in those cases where the aforesaid findings are made, if two or more plaintiffs have received verdicts or findings of such damages in a total amount, for all plaintiffs claiming damages from a single occurrence, transaction, act of malpractice, or injury which exceeds five hundred thousand dollars, the amount of such damages recoverable by each plaintiff will be reduced to a percentage of five hundred thousand dollars proportionate to that plaintiff's share of the total amount of such damages for all plaintiffs. Such limit shall apply, except in those cases where the aforesaid findings are made, regardless of the number of persons liable jointly or severally for the said damages.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case: Primus v. Galgano, 329 F.3d 236 (1st Cir. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Primus v. Galgano, 329 F.3d 236 (1st Cir. 2003). · cites it 6× “He also argues the district court committed error in failing to instruct the jury under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 231, § 60H (West 2003) and that the verdict should be reduced to the $500,000 cap under that statute.”
Morgan v. Lab'y Corp. of Am., 844 N.E.2d 689 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 2× “Instructions under G. L. c. 231, § 60H. Lab Corp. claims that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the $500,000 cap for damages applicable in medical malpractice actions when the defendants, including Lab Corp.”
Darviris v. Petros, 442 Mass. 274 (Mass. 2004). “231, § 60D; requires specification and itemization in damages awards, G. L. c.”
Primus v. Galgano, 187 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Mass. 2002). · cites it 5× “MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT RICHARD GALGANO’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH M.G.L. c. 231, § 60H [Docket #61] STEARNS, District Judge.”
Sisson v. Lhowe, 954 N.E.2d 1115 (Mass. 2011). “, G. L. c. 231, § 60H (placing cap on pain and suffering for personal injury but not wrongful death); and the claims receive differential treatment with respect to interest on damages.”
Vasa v. Compass Med., P.C., 921 N.E.2d 963 (Mass. 2010). “, supra at 824, the Appeals Court held that an action against a laboratory for failing to communicate to the plaintiff’s physician test results indicating a life-threatening condition was not subject to the damages cap applicable to malpractice actions under G. L. c. 231, § 60H.…”
DOLORES M. BROWN, Individually & as Pers. Rep. v. SAINT VINCENT RADIOLOGICAL Assocs., INC. (Mass. App. Ct. 2024). “229, §§ 2, 6; G. L. c. 231, § 60H. [9] At trial, SVRA is free to argue that its contract did not include this obligation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.