Does a prior constitutional ruling automatically invalidate a revised damages cap? University of Utah v. Tullis Explained

Background and facts: In 2018, a four-year-old child suffered a massive air embolism during surgery at University of Utah Hospital, resulting in severe brain damage. The child’s parents sued the University and other healthcare providers for medical malpractice, with expert testimony estimating future medical and care expenses exceeding $22 million. The University moved for partial summary judgment to limit its liability to $745,200 under the 2017 Governmental Immunity Act’s damages cap. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Condemarin v. University Hospital established that GIA damages caps are unconstitutional as applied to the University.

Key legal issues: The central issue was whether Condemarin v. University Hospital, which held that earlier recovery limits statutes imposing a $100,000 flat cap were unconstitutional as applied to University Hospital, controls the constitutionality of the 2017 GIA’s damages cap of $745,200. The University argued that Condemarin was a plurality opinion with limited precedential value that did not apply to the revised statutory scheme.

Court’s analysis and holding: The Utah Supreme Court reversed, emphasizing that Condemarin was a splintered decision where three justices disagreed on the constitutional analysis, resulting in a narrow holding limited to declaring the specific recovery limits statutes “unconstitutional as applied to University Hospital.” The court explained that because no majority rationale was adopted, only the holding itself carries precedential weight. Since the 2017 GIA contains different statutory provisions with a higher damages cap and inflation adjustment mechanism, Condemarin’s holding does not automatically apply. Without a controlling majority rationale to test the revised cap against, the court cannot declare the new statute unconstitutional simply because an earlier version was struck down.

Practice implications: This decision demonstrates the limited precedential effect of plurality opinions in constitutional challenges. Practitioners cannot rely solely on narrow holdings from splintered decisions to challenge revised statutes without demonstrating that either the material facts are identical or that a controlling rationale, applied to different facts, demands the same result. The ruling also highlights the importance of understanding the precise scope of prior holdings when arguing stare decisis. For medical malpractice practitioners, the decision leaves open the question of whether the 2017 GIA’s damages cap is constitutional, requiring fresh constitutional analysis rather than automatic application of Condemarin.