Holding that the Federal Tort Claims Act's use of "punitive damages" unambiguously adopted the established legal meaning of the phrase because " ‘[p]unitive damages’ is a legal term of art that has a widely accepted common-law meaning.... Although the precise nature and use of punitive damages may have evolved over time, and the size and frequency of such awards may have increased, this Court's decisions make clear that the concept of ‘punitive damages’ has a long pedigree in the law."
Holding that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning [of § 538.225 ] is that if ... a statutorily adequate health care affidavit has not been timely filed, the trial court must dismiss the complaint without prejudice”
Holding the filing of an amended complaint in which the plaintiff abandoned his initial, unexhausted medical malpractice claim and asserted only a new exhausted premises liability claim constituted the commencement of an entirely new action
Acknowledging that analysis in Budding was based in part on understanding that legislature “intended to impose specific limitations on the traditional tort causes of action available against a health care provider,” and that statute limited such causes of action by requiring that “cause of action be dependent upon an affidavit ... of failure to exercise reasonable care” (quoting Budding, 19 S.W.3d at 680 )