Estate of Michelle Evette McCall v. United States

Case: 09-16375 Date Filed: 07/01/2014 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-16375
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 3:07-cv-00508-MCR-EMT
ESTATE OF MICHELLE EVETTE MCCALL,
by and through co-personal representatives
Edward M. McCall II, Margarita F. McCall,
and Jason Walley,
EDWARD M. MCCALL, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(July 1, 2014)
Before MARTIN and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and HODGES, * District
Judge.
*
Honorable William Terrell Hodges, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
Case: 09-16375 Date Filed: 07/01/2014 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
After a bench trial, the Estate of Michelle McCall, her parents, and the father
of her son (collectively Plaintiffs) received a judgment against the United States
under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671–80, for Michelle
McCall’s wrongful death. A more detailed recitation of the facts and procedural
history is set forth in our previous opinion, Estate of McCall ex rel. McCall v.
United States, 642 F.3d 944, 946–48 (11th Cir. 2011).
Relevant here is the district court’s application of Florida’s statutory cap on
noneconomic damages for medical malpractice claims to limit Plaintiffs’ recovery
of noneconomic damages to $1 million, despite its finding that Plaintiffs’
noneconomic damages totaled $2 million. See Fla. Stat. § 766.118(2). In its order
applying Florida’s noneconomic damage cap, the district court also denied
Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, which challenged the
constitutionality of the cap under the United States and Florida Constitutions. 1
Plaintiffs appealed both the application and constitutionality of the cap.
In our previous order, we affirmed the district court’s application of
Florida’s noneconomic damage cap and concluded that the cap did not violate the
1
The district court proceeded reluctantly with the state constitutional questions, noting this case
raised novel issues of state law, but also recognizing that the Florida Supreme Court does not
have authority to accept certified questions from a United States District Court.
2
Case: 09-16375 Date Filed: 07/01/2014 Page: 3 of 4
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Takings Clause of the
Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or the Takings Clause of
Article X, § 6(a) of the Florida Constitution. Estate of McCall ex rel. McCall, 642
F.3d at 948–51. But because several of Plaintiffs’ remaining constitutional
challenges raised important questions about the interpretation and application of
Florida law that were unsettled, we certified four questions to the Florida Supreme
Court. Id. at 952–53.
On March 13, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court issued its answer to these
certified questions, Estate of McCall v. United States, 134 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2014),
which is attached here as Appendix I. The Florida Supreme Court rephrased the
first question as:
Does the statutory cap on wrongful death 2 noneconomic damages, Fla.
Stat. § 766.118, violate the right to equal protection under Article I,
Section 2 of the Florida Constitution?
Appendix I at 2. The Florida Supreme Court answered this question in the
affirmative. Id. at 7–40. As a result, the Florida Supreme Court found it
unnecessary to answer the remaining certified questions. Id. at 40–42.
Based on the Florida Supreme Court’s conclusion that Fla. Stat. § 766.118’s
statutory cap on wrongful death noneconomic damages violates the Equal
2
Because the legal analyses for personal injury damages and wrongful death damages under
Florida law are not the same, the Florida Supreme Court limited its analysis to the wrongful
death damages at issue in Plaintiffs’ case. Appendix I at 7 n.2.
3
Case: 09-16375 Date Filed: 07/01/2014 Page: 4 of 4
Protection Clause in Article I, Section 2, of the Florida Constitution, we reverse the
district court’s order applying the cap and remand this case for further proceedings
consistent with the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion, as well as this Court’s
previous opinion.
REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
4