Ohio Appellate Court Finds Medical Catastrophic Damage Cap Statute Unconstitutional in as Applied Challenge

by Brianna Prislipsky, Esq.

On January 30, 2025, the Eighth District Court of Appeals issued a decision finding the medical claim catastrophic damage cap statute, R.C. 2323.43(A)(3), unconstitutional in an as applied challenge.  While many trial courts have previously considered this issue, the Eighth District is the first appellate court within the state of Ohio to directly address the statute’s constitutionality. 

The appeal arose out of medical claims brought by a plaintiff who underwent cataract surgery.  The day after the surgery, the plaintiff reported black spots in his vision that had not been there previously and was initially diagnosed with a vitreous hemorrhage.  Subsequently care providers diagnosed him with endophthalmitis, an aggressive eye infection, and a detached retina which allegedly caused the plaintiff to lose his eye. 

The plaintiff then sued the physician, alleging that he failed to timely and accurately treat and diagnose his condition, and that the subsequent delay caused the plaintiff to suffer a permanent substantial injury.  The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the plaintiff was awarded $1.49 million for past and future non-economic damages.  The jury also found that the plaintiff suffered a catastrophic injury from the loss of a “bodily organ system” and a “substantial physical deformity.”

Under R.C. 2323.43, Ohio’s medical claim damage cap statute, any non-economic damages for catastrophic injuries are subject to a cap of $500,000.  The trial court, however, refused to apply the damage cap, finding that it was unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff, and that it violated his due course of law rights under the Ohio Constitution, Article I, § 16.  The physician appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, raising several assignments of error, including the trial court’s finding that the damage cap statute was unconstitutional. 

On appeal, the Eighth District affirmed the trial court’s determination that the damage cap statute was unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff.  Specifically, the Eighth District found that the catastrophic damage cap statute, which was enacted to combat rising malpractice insurance costs for medical providers, was not supported by a rational basis.

The Eighth District further emphasized that it had not seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the cap specifically had an impact on insurance rates for medical care providers, due in part to how few verdicts are rendered in excess of the catastrophic damage cap. As such, the Eighth District found that the cap was arbitrary and unreasonable, and that applying the cap to the plaintiff would violate his rights under the due course of law clause in the Ohio Constitution. 

This decision will have major ramifications statewide, given that the Eighth District is the first appellate court to address a constitutional challenge to R.C. 2323.43.  While done in the context of an as applied challenge, the Eighth District’s reasoning could be applied to other plaintiffs who meet the catastrophic injury criteria. Ultimately, it is anticipated that the Ohio Supreme Court will entertain the issue. However, this decision should not impact any court’s implementation of the lower, non-catastrophic damage cap under the same statute.

If you have any questions about this ruling or its impact, please do not hesitate to reach out to one of the attorneys from our Appellate Advocacy or Medical Malpractice Practice Groups.