Business & Practice Management > Malpractice Monitor

This $2M verdict could make your malpractice policy obsolete

By MDLinx staff

Published May 16, 2025

Key Takeaways

Industry Buzz

“The provisions violate the Seventh Amendment by altering the jury’s factual determination of appropriate compensatory damages… thereby rendering the jury verdict merely advisory and effectively abrogating the substance of the common-law right of trial by jury." — Court documents

A Waco couple is suing Ascension Providence Hospital for $2 million, claiming their newborn suffered brain damage due to delayed intervention during labor.^[]

But this case is doing more than pointing fingers at providers—it’s taking aim at Texas’ long-standing cap on malpractice damages.

Their lawsuit doesn’t just allege negligence. It argues that Texas’ $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages—pain, suffering, emotional distress—is unconstitutional. Specifically, the filing claims the cap “violates the Seventh Amendment by altering the jury’s factual determination of appropriate compensatory damages… rendering the jury verdict merely advisory and effectively abrogating the substance of the common-law right of trial by jury.”^[]

If that sounds like a dry legal argument, here’s why you should care: If successful, this case could topple malpractice caps in Texas—and possibly beyond—leaving physicians more financially exposed than ever.

What happened

According to the suit, the couple’s baby experienced signs of distress during labor, including abnormal fetal heart tones that were allegedly not properly monitored or acted on. They claim there was a critical delay in escalating care, and the baby now lives with lasting neurological damage. The lawsuit says hospital staff missed key red flags and failed to intervene quickly enough, resulting in preventable harm.^[]

Why this lawsuit matters more than most

This isn’t the first time a state’s damage caps have been challenged, and the outcomes vary. Some state courts (like California and Wisconsin) have upheld them. Others, including courts in Florida and Illinois, have struck them down.^[] But this suit’s constitutional framing under the federal Seventh Amendment could make it a broader threat.

If caps fall, physicians may face:

Unlimited jury awards for noneconomic damages — even in cases with minimal medical expenses or lost wages.
Higher malpractice premiums, especially for OB/GYNs, neurosurgeons, and ED docs.
Increased litigation, with trial lawyers more eager to take cases to court.
More defensive medicine, as physicians work to protect themselves from liability, not just treat the patient.
Access-to-care issues, particularly in rural and underserved areas where rising costs could drive physicians out or reduce high-risk services like labor and delivery.

Even if you’re not in Texas, this could be a signal. A win for the plaintiffs here could embolden similar legal arguments in other states, especially those with their own caps on noneconomic damages.