No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Recent Developments in Health Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Extract
On December 20, 2002, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion in Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield granting a landmark punitive damages award against the defendant-insurer for breach of contract and bad faith in its coverage of a cancer patient. The court directed that the punitive damages award of $30 million, should it be accepted by the plaintiff, be apportioned between the plaintiff and a cancer research fund to be established in the name of the plaintiff's deceased wife, Esther Dardinger. In so doing, the court broke new ground in the scope and social purpose of punitive damages in health care litigation, as well as the courts’ role in distributing those damages.
After being diagnosed with metastatic brain tumors in October 1996, Esther began intra-arterial chemotherapy (IAC) treatments at the recommendation of her physician, Dr. Newton. IAC is a targeted form of chemotherapy in which an arterial catheter is threaded through a cranial artery near the tumor and into the brain.
- Type
- Recent Developments in Health Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2003
References
Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 781 N.E.2d 121 (Ohio 2002).Google Scholar
See id. at 146.Google Scholar
Id. at 124.Google Scholar
Id. at 124–25.Google Scholar
Id. at 125.Google Scholar
Id. at 127.Google Scholar
See id. at 128.Google Scholar
Id. at 129.Google Scholar
Id. at 131.Google Scholar
Id. at 133.Google Scholar
Id. at 134.Google Scholar
Id. at 132; id. at 134.Google Scholar
Id. at 134.Google Scholar
Id. at 134–35.Google Scholar
Id. at 135.Google Scholar
Id. Piercing the corporate veil is a means by which courts reach corporate entities that would otherwise be protected from liability based on their corporate structure.Google Scholar
Id. at 136–40.Google Scholar
Id. at 139. The court also noted that defendants’ motion for directed verdict was based on an argument that Dardinger had failed to prove any damages, not that AICI had a separate contractual status; furthermore, the two entities submitted the motion together, rather than making a specific motion for directed verdict as to AICI alone. Id. at 137. Defendants’ counsel also failed to make separate requests as to AICI on the bad faith and punitive damages claims. Id. at 138.Google Scholar
Id. at 140.Google Scholar
Id. at 142.Google Scholar
Id. at 143. Courts review the imposition of punitive damages under the Due Process Clause because “elementary notions of fairness ‘dictate that a person receive fair notice not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment, but also of the severity of the penalty that a State may impose.’” Id. at 140 (quoting BMW of N. Amer. Inc., v. Core, 517 U.S. 559, 574 (1996)).Google Scholar
Id. at 144.Google Scholar
Id. at 145.Google Scholar
Id. at 146.Google Scholar
Kemezy v. Peters, 79 F.3d 33 (7th Cir. 1996) (as cited in Epstein, R., Cases and Materials on Torts (New York: Aspen Law & Business, 2000): At 909–12).Google Scholar
Dardinger, 781 N.E.2d at 145.Google Scholar
See Welles, D., “Charitable Punishment: A Proposal to Award Punitive Damages to Nonprofit Organizations,” Stanford Law and Policy Review, 9 (1998): 203–13, at 204.Google Scholar
Larsen, S., “Validity, Construction, and Application of Statutes Requiring that Percentage of Punitive Damages Award Be Paid Directly to State or Court-Administered Fund,” American Law Reports 5th, 16 (1993): 129.Google Scholar
For a more recent discussion of state distributional constraint statutes, see Han, J., “The Constitutionality of Oregon's Split-Recovery Punirive Damages Statute,” Willamette Law Review, 38 (2002): 477–533. See also Dodson, S., “Assessing the Practicality and Constitutionality of Alaska's Split-Recovery Punitive Damages Statute,” Duke Law Journal, 49 (2000): 1335–69.Google Scholar
Dardinger, 781 N.E.2d at 145.Google Scholar
Id. at 146.Google Scholar
Id. at 147–48.Google Scholar
Id. at 147.Google Scholar
Welles, , supra note 38.Google Scholar
Liptak, A., “Court Orders Donation from Damages: Plaintiff in Dispute over Insurance Told to Give $20 Million,” Chicago Tribune, December 18, 2002, at 2.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See White House Office of the Press Secretary, Press Release, President Calls for Medical Liability Reform (January 16, 2003), available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030116.html>. In his proposal, President Bush calls for the “National adoption of proven standards to make the medical liability system more fair, predictable, and timely.” See press release for his specific recommendations to Congress..+In+his+proposal,+President+Bush+calls+for+the+“National+adoption+of+proven+standards+to+make+the+medical+liability+system+more+fair,+predictable,+and+timely.”+See+press+release+for+his+specific+recommendations+to+Congress.>Google Scholar