The trial court found good cause to exceed the cap and concluded that imposing the cap would be unfair. The court entered judgment for the full amount of the jury award, plus pre- and post-filing interest, which totaled nearly $40 million….medicalmalpracticelawyers, Colorado Supreme Court Affirms $40M Medical Malpractice Verdict That Exceeded Cap
The Gressers, individually and on behalf of their minor daughter, C.G., asserted a medical negligence claim against Banner Health premised on the alleged failure of its nursing staff to timely recognize and report to C.G.’s treating physicians that C.G. was exhibiting signs of sepsis. The jury found in favor of the Gressers, and the court entered judgment in their favor in the amount of $39,845,196.83.
C.G. was born at Banner Health. Late on the second day of her life, C.G. was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), where she received antibiotics to treat a possible infection. The following morning, lab results confirmed that C.G. had an E. coli infection. By that time, C.G. had developed sepsis. As a result of the sepsis, she suffered irreversible neurological injuries, including cerebral palsy and cognitive and developmental delays.
The Gressers alleged that nurses employed by Banner Health breached their duty of care by failing to timely notify C.G.’s physicians that C.G. was exhibiting signs of sepsis, and that such failure resulted in delayed treatment and caused C.G.’s injuries.
The jury found that Banner Health was negligent and that its negligence was the proximate cause of C.G.’s injuries.
After the jury rendered its verdict, the trial court determined it was appropriate to lift the cap.The trial court concluded that its application of the cap was “binary”: it was required either to impose the $1 million cap or enter a judgment in the amount that the jury had calculated for past and future economic damages.It chose the latter option and entered the full amount the jury had awarded.
Under the HCAA, a jury calculates the amount of damages without being instructed on the cap, but the court presumptively limits the award to $1 million if the jury’s calculation exceeds that amount.
However, the legislature provided an exception under which a plaintiff may challenge the imposition of the $1 million cap: “if, upon good cause shown, the court determines that the present value of past and future economic damages would exceed such limitation and that the application of such limitation would be unfair, the court may award in excess of the limitation the present value of additional past and future economic damages only.”