Texas Attorney General Opinion: LA-135 Page: 4 of 9
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Honorable A. R. Schwartz - page 4 (LA No. 135)
was discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Dandridge
v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485 (1970) where it was said:
In the area of economics and social welfare,
a State does not violate the Equal Protection
Clause merely because the classifications made
by its laws are imperfect. If the classifica-
tion has some "reasonable basis," it does not
offend the Constitution simply because the
classification "is not made with mathematical
nicety or because in practice it results in
some inequality." Lindsley v. Natural
Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78. . . . "A
statutory discrimination will not be set aside
if any state of facts reasonably may be con-
ceived to justify it." McGowan v. Maryland,
366 U.S. 420, 426.
City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (1976); San Antonio
School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973); Ferguson v.
Scrupa, 372 U.S. 726 (1963); Williamson v. Lee Optical Co.,
348 U.S. 483 (1955).
For the same reasons involved in our determination of the
special law question, it is our view that the legislation pro-
bably would not be held by the courts to be unconstitutional
under an equal protection challenge.
The two portions of the bill generating the most substantial
questions involve the limitation of recovery in health care torts
and the use of a mandatory health care screening panel.
Senate Bill 103 would limit the civil liability of physicians
or health care providers in health care liability claims to (1)
all past and future medical expenses and other recoverable ex-
penses, (2) a maximum of $100,000 for all past and future non-
economic loss such as pain and suffering, consortium, inconvenience,
physical impairment and disfigurement and (3) a maximum of
$400,000 for loss of earnings of an injured person or for all
elements of damage recoverable by beneficiaries in a.wrongful
death action. Thus, if the legislation is enacted the maximum
recovery would be $500,000 plus medical and similar expenses.
You have specifically asked if this limitation would constitute
a special law or a violation of equal protection or due process.
As we have already addressed the special law and equal protection
concepts, we need discuss only the due process aspect of the
question.p. 465
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View two places within this text that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: LA-135, text, April 4, 1977; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth276798/m1/4/?q=MISSOURI%20CITY: accessed April 27, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.