EAST ST. LOUIS — A U.S. district judge in East St. Louis ordered that parties in a more than $29 million medical malpractice case involving a 36-year-old man who suffered severe kidney damage due to alleged negligence to submit calculations and proposed judgments to the court.
On June 19, U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois ordered that plaintiff Kevin Clanton and defendant the United States of America had to submit calculations, worksheets and proposed judgments in accordance with her instructions. All information had to be submitted by no later than June 30, according to the order.
In March, Rosenstengel awarded Kevin Clanton $29.6 million in damages in his medical malpractice suit against an East St. Louis clinic, which is operated by Southern Illinois Healthcare Foundation (SIHF). Clanton filed his suit against the federal government because it funded SIHF. The damages are to cover future medical expenses to treat Clanton’s kidney condition, which could include two more transplants.
During a hearing on May 22, the parties worked to translate the statute’s dictates into a workable methodology. After comparing the methodologies to the statute, the court held that Clanton’s methodology was “spot on.” The court ordered the parties to submit calculations with modifications.
For future damages, the amount of periodic payments should be calculated based on a life expectancy of 70 years, which Clanton will reach on May 23, 2050. The court found that the amount of future damages that should be included in the present award is $250,000, and declined to authorize an increased amount, according to the order.
The court rejected the defendant’s proposition that this amount should be reduced to present value. Since the defendant agreed to invoke the Illinois periodic payment provision, the court stated that it was obligated to follow all statute rules.
According to the order, the court also rejected the defendant’s proposal to impose a reversionary interest because the statute indicates that a plaintiff may still be entitled to payments after his death, and if so, those payments should be made to his qualifying survivors.