In the last few decades, more than half of all states have enacted some type of cap on medical malpractice damages as a response to enormous awards dramatically driving up the cost of healthcare.

In the last few decades, more than half of all states have enacted some type of cap on medical malpractice damages as a response to enormous awards dramatically driving up the cost of healthcare.  However, these caps are frequently criticized because of their potential to deny compensation to patients who some argue may deserve awards which exceed these damage caps. 

Medical malpractice verdicts are composed of three types of damages:

Compensatory (aka “economic”) damages cover the patient’s economic losses, like lost wages and medical bills and are intended to put the plaintiff in the same financial position had the malpractice not occurred.

Noneconomic damages compensate the plaintiff for pain and suffering, loss of consortium and a decrease in quality of life. Noneconomic damages vary widely from case to case.

Punitive (aka “exemplary”) damages are the third component of a medical malpractice award and are meant to punish the defendant for wrongful conduct and to deter others from engaging in similar behavior.

In your required reading this week (See the READ file), you learned that the North Carolina legislature instituted a $500,000 cap (§ 90-21.19. Liability limit for noneconomic damages) which is adjusted annually, on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases.  In your opinion, are medical malpractice damage caps an appropriate response to curb the rising costs of health care?