Florida Statute section 766.118(6) caps noneconomic damages awardable specifically to Medicaid patients to $200,000 per provider and $300,000 per incident when that treatment has been determined by a jury to be negligent.
A judge of the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for the State of Florida stated in his Order on Defendants’ Post-Trial Motions filed on December 31, 2025: “the negligence here occurred in an ER setting where treatment is statutorily mandated, and, therefore, not susceptible to being “incentivized.” In other words, section 766.118(6)’s Medicaid cap cannot increase the probability that healthcare providers in the emergency department will treat Medicaid patients because, in an emergency department, they have no choice in the matter—they legally must treat Medicaid patients. As such, section 766.118(6) cannot rationally serve any legitimate state interest in this setting. Plaintiff likewise persuasively argues that the cap’s purported goal of incentivizing physicians to treat Medicaid patients is irrelevant to nurses in particular, as there is no allegation or evidence that there is or ever was a need to incentivize nurses to treat Medicaid patients.”
“The Court is persuaded by these case-specific arguments and concludes that section 766.118(6) is unconstitutional as applied to this case, where the negligence was committed in the emergency department by a nurse. There is no rational basis for a cap on damages to incentivize medical care where the law already requires it, or where there is no alleged shortage of nurses to treat Medicaid patients. That leaves the Medicaid cap without any rational relationship to a legitimate state interest as applied to the ER setting or to nursing negligence. Thus, on the case-specific challenge here, the cap fails rational basis review and violates the Equal Protection Clause.”
Damages Award
“Defendants argue that the jury’s award exceeded what Plaintiff’s counsel requested in closing argument. Although this does not necessarily require remittitur, because the jury’s $70,832,504.63 damages award is manifestly excessive, contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and balancing the facts and issues in this case, this Court finds that remittitur is appropriate. The jury awarded the following compensatory damages to Plaintiff following trial:
Past Medical Expenses: $1,003,201.99
Future Medical Expenses: $17,172,848.75
Lost wages: $287,663.01
Loss of earning capacity in the future: $1,368,790.88
Past Pain and Suffering: $2,000,000 (four years)
Future Pain and Suffering: $49,000,000 (life expectancy 38.5 years)
Under section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes, when determining whether an award is excessive or inadequate, the trial court is required to consider the following criteria:
(a) Whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, passion, or corruption on the part of the trier of fact;
(b) Whether it appears that the trier of fact ignored the evidence in reaching a verdict or misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amounts of damages recoverable;
(c) Whether the trier of fact took improper elements of damages into account or arrived at the amount of damages by speculation and conjecture;
(d) Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and
(e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons.
. . . .
In this case, the Court does not disturb the jury’s award of compensatory damages; Defendants have presented insufficient evidence on which to base a reduction. However, despite its conclusion that the statutory cap on noneconomic damages imposed by section 766.118(6), Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional as applied in this case, the Court nonetheless finds that the jury’s award of $51 million in noneconomic damages is not only against the weight of the evidence, which exceeds the figure Plaintiff sought by a factor of 2.5, but reflects that the jury’s passions were
inflamed during the course of the trial. Whether the jury’s passions were or were not inflamed, the figure is not consistent with any evidence. Accordingly, this Court exercises its discretion to grant remittitur of the future pain and suffering award.
. . . .
Although the Court is mindful that it cannot act as a seventh juror, the foregoing supports this Court’s conclusion that the noneconomic damage award is excessive and should be reduced to the $500,000 per year for Plaintiff’s life’s expectancy.
. . . .
The Judgment is hereby amended as follows: the Amended Judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $41,082,504.63 itemized as follows: Past Medical Expenses: $1,003,201.99; Future Medical Expenses: $17,172,848.75; Lost wages: $287,663.01; Loss of earning capacity in the future: $1,368,790.88; Past Pain and Suffering: $2,000,000; Future Pain and Suffering: $19,250,000 ($500,000/yr. x 38.5 yrs.), for which sums let execution issue.”
Chiaka Stewart v. Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. d/b/a Tampa General Hospital, Case No: 22-CA-004625.
If you or a loved one have suffered serious harm (or worse) as a result of medical negligence in Florida or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Florida medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice lawyers in your U.S. state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
