Punitive Damages: Court Orders Two-Thirds to Go to State University Cancer Research Program

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 31 (2):308-312 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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 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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Exemplary Damages in Equity: A Law and Economics Perspective.Anthony Duggan - 2006 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26 (2):303-326.
Implications of the Supreme Court's ACA Medicaid Decision.Jane Perkins - 2013 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 41 (s1):77-79.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-02-04

Downloads
11 (#1,075,532)

6 months
6 (#431,022)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references