Scott v. SSM Healthcare

SCOTT V. SSM HEALTHCARE

ST. LOUIS

MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS, EASTERN DISTRICT

Jan. 29, 2002

The plaintiff Matthew Scott asserted two claims against the defendant hospital, SSM Healthcare. Each of the counts was found by the Eastern District Court of Appeals to justify a separate statutory noneconomic damage cap pursuant to Section 538.210. The plaintiff's first claim was against the hospital for the acts of Dr. Koch, an agent of the hospital, wherein Dr. Koch misread a CT film, claiming the CT scan to be normal. In fact, the CT scan revealed infection at the top of Scott's brain, which resulted in symptoms of headache, lethargy, nausea and vomiting.

The plaintiff's second claim was against the hospital for the vicarious liability of one of its employees, Dr. Doumit. Scott claimed Dr. Doumit failed to examine and advise Scott to return to the hospital following three phone calls describing his symptoms. Dr. Doumit advised that the symptoms were probably signs of a minor concussion. Both Dr. Koch, a contract radiologist found to be the hospital's agent, and Dr. Doumit were found to have committed negligent acts attributable to the hospital through either vicarious liability or agency principles.

After the jury returned a verdict assessing Scott's total damage at $4,445,000, the hospital filed post-trial motions seeking that the court determine that only a single statutory cap ($557,000 per injury) on noneconomic damage apply to the hospital pursuant to Section 538.210. The trial court held that two caps applied in the facts of the case because there were "two separate and distinct occurrences of malpractice."

The appellant contended the statute permitted only one damage cap "per occurrence for noneconomic damages from any one defendant." (Section 538.210.1, RSMo.) In pointing out the issue was purely one of statutory interpretation as to the meaning of "occurrence" as used in Section 538.210, RSMo, the appellate court resorted to rules of construction of statutory meaning in finding that two noneconomic caps applied, because there were "two separate and distinct occurrences."