## Facts

- Richie Lee Wilson, a 35-year-old mother of three and licensed practical nurse, underwent jaw reconstruction surgery at Medical Center Hospitals in May 1980.
- The procedure included removal of rib segments by a general surgeon and grafting of reshaped rib bone to Wilson’s jaw by an oral surgeon.
- Wilson suffered severe, permanent injuries, including brain damage, left-side paralysis, and lifelong need for care; her life expectancy was found to be 39.9 years.
- The jury found the hospital and the surgeon negligent and that their negligence proximately caused Wilson’s injuries.
- Plaintiffs claimed economic loss exceeding $1.9 million, and the jury returned a $2,750,000 verdict against both defendants jointly and severally.
- The trial court reduced the verdict to $750,000 under Virginia Code § 8.01-581.15, which capped recoverable damages in medical malpractice actions.

## Issues

1. Whether Virginia Code § 8.01-581.15’s medical malpractice damages cap violates the Virginia Constitution’s jury trial guarantee.
2. Whether the cap violates equal protection or due process under the Virginia or United States Constitutions.
3. Whether related provisions of the Medical Malpractice Act were properly construed and applied in reducing the judgment to the statutory maximum.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the trial court’s judgment applying the statutory cap and reducing the award to $750,000.
- The court held that Virginia Code § 8.01-581.15 violates neither the Federal nor the Virginia Constitution.
- The court rejected challenges based on the right to trial by jury, equal protection, and due process.

## Legal Principles

- Acts of the General Assembly are presumed constitutional; the challenger bears the burden to show a statute is plainly inconsistent with constitutional provisions.
- The Virginia jury trial guarantee preserves the jury’s role in resolving disputed facts, including assessing damages; after the jury’s assessment, the court applies governing law to the verdict.
- A statutory damages cap operates as a legal limit on the remedy rather than an invasion of the jury’s fact-finding function.
- The General Assembly may set outer limits on remedies for a cause of action so long as a cause of action and a substantial remedy remain available.
- Under rational-basis review, the legislature may treat medical malpractice claims differently from other tort claims based on policy concerns such as insurance cost and availability and effects on public welfare.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Virginia’s medical malpractice damages cap as a valid legislative limit on the legal remedy, concluding that post-verdict reduction to the statutory maximum does not violate the jury trial guarantee and survives constitutional challenges under equal protection and due process.


Etheridge v. Med. Ctr. Hosps., 376 S.E.2d 525 (Va. 1989)