The Statute and the Issue

As part of the Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011, the legislature passed a statutory cap on noneconomic damages, codified as Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-102. This cap was deemed constitutional in McClay v. Airport Management Services, LLC. However, an open question had remained as to the application of the statutory cap to a spouse’s loss of consortium claim. In the recent case of Yebuah, et al v. Center for Urological Treatment, PLC, the Tennessee Supreme Court provided additional interpretation of the statutory cap on noneconomic damages and how it applies to a loss of consortium claim.

The Case

Plaintiff, Cynthia Yebuah, underwent a surgical procedure in which a portion of a GelPort surgical device was inadvertently left inside of the Plaintiff’s abdomen. Plaintiffs filed suit against several medical providers, seeking recovery for noneconomic damages, including a loss of consortium claim. The jury awarded Mrs. Yebuah $2,000,000 for pain and suffering and $2,000,000 for loss of enjoyment of life. In addition, the jury awarded Mr. Yebuah $500,000 for loss of consortium.

The trial court determined that the statutory $750,000 cap on noneconomic damages should apply separately to each Plaintiff’s damages award and entered a judgment of $750,000 for Mrs. Yebuah and judgment of $500,000 for Mr. Yebuah, resulting in a total verdict of $1,250,000.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the Center’s application for permission to appeal on the sole issue of whether the statutory cap on noneconomic damages applies separately to a spouse’s loss of consortium claim.

Plaintiffs argued the statute’s usage of “each injured plaintiff” referred to each plaintiff and cited to the Court of Appeals’ finding that “[t]he repeated phrase ‘each injured plaintiff’ tells us that the legislature chose to impose a ‘per plaintiff’ limit on noneconomic damages.’” However, the Tennessee Supreme Court noted that Plaintiff’s position did not account for the differences between a plaintiff with a personal injury and a spouse with a loss of consortium claim, and the Court determined that the statute’s use of “each injured plaintiff” was not synonymous with “each plaintiff.” The Court also noted that the Tennessee Pattern Jury Instructions include a distinction between the “injured spouse” and the “other spouse.” The Court determined that because “[a] loss of consortium claim is a derivative claim, and recovery is dependent on the spouse's recovery,” the statute’s use of “injured plaintiff” should be interpreted as limiting language.

The Takeaway

Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-39-102 limits noneconomic damages to $750,000 for the aggregate award for an injured plaintiff and any derivative claims (for injuries that are not “catastrophic” as defined by the statute). If a jury awards more than $750,000 in noneconomic damages to an injured plaintiff and to a spouse with a loss of consortium claim, the trial court must reduce all noneconomic damages amounts to a total of $750,000, regardless of the damages awarded by the jury.