538.215. Damage itemization by trier of fact — excess noneconomic damages to be reduced by court. — 1. In any action against a health care provider for damages for personal injury or death arising out of the rendering of or the failure to render health care services, any damages found shall be itemized by the trier of fact as follows:
(1) Past economic damages;
(2) Past noneconomic damages;
(3) Future medical damages;
(4) Future economic damages, excluding future medical damages; and
(5) Future noneconomic damages.
2. All future damages which are itemized as required by subsection 1 of this section shall be expressed by the trier of fact at present value.
3. Any award of noneconomic damages in excess of the limit provided herein shall be reduced by the court to the maximum amount.
Notes of Decisions
Klotz v. St. Anthony's Med. Ctr., 311 S.W.3d 752 (Mo. 2010).
· cites it 10× “Shapiro and MHG argue that § 538.215, RSMo Supp.2008, required the Klotzes to present the present value of the requested future damages.”
Redfield v. Beverly Health & Rehab. Servs., Inc., 42 S.W.3d 703 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “ial court erred in not amending the judgment because the trial court should have reduced the entire $2,000,000 judgment to $917,000 in that the judgment should reflect a reduction equal to the equitable share of Radford’s settlement ($200,000) and a reduction of an additional…”
Betts-Lucas v. Hartmann, 87 S.W.3d 310 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
“205(4) governing actions against health care providers, the actual damages were itemized by category and then subjected to the cap limitations of § 538.215. 5 . As we have observed before, summary judgment may not be the most efficient way to resolve a case where the parties…”
Cline v. William H. Friedman & Assocs., Inc., 882 S.W.2d 754 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “The trial court remitted $138,000 as being in excess of the maximum recovery allowable for non-economic damages in a medical malpractice case, § 538.215 RSMo. 1986, and denied defendant’s motions for new trial, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for further remittitur.”
Vincent Ex Rel. Vincent v. Johnson, 833 S.W.2d 859 (Mo. 1992).
“All parties agreed at that time that, rather than the jury apportioning the fault of NME Hospitals, an “appropriate” reduction could be made from any judgment.”
Roesch v. Ryan, 841 F. Supp. 288 (E.D. Mo. 1993).
“On October 29, 1993, the jury returned its verdict in favor of both plaintiffs against defendant Lawrence P. Ryan, D.D.S., M.D., only. The jury returned defendants' verdicts in favor of the other two individual doctors.”
Arlene Wickham v. Jean Hummel (Mo. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 9× “In Point VIII, Hummel argues that Wickham failed to present any evidence of the present value of her future medical damages as required by Section 538.215. In her ninth point, Hummel argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury to express future medical…”
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.