San Diego Injury Lawyer Blog

It's always nice to trumpet the accomplishments of friends and their deserving clients.

Last Friday, a San Diego Superior Court jury awarded $5.7 million verdict to a bedridden San Diego man who claimed a doctor failed to diagnose his skin cancer. Under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, the award will be reduced to $1.9 million. The 1975 state act requires the court to cut general damages to $250,000 in medical-malpractice cases. It is the largest medical-malpractice award in the state this year. The verdict came after a four week trial.

The jury agreed that the plaintiff, Regis M. Reilly, 53, suffered from life-threatening skin cancer after dermatologist James C. Powers failed to remove cysts on the right shoulder that eventually metastasized into cancer.

Reilly's attorney, Denise Asher, said she was pleased by the size of the award because it represented a sum large enough to offset the trauma caused by the misdiagnosis.

"When you see pictures of the cysts, they are football-sized and deep in the tissue," Asher said. Reilly went through a series of surgeries to remove the cancerous tissue. His wife, Karen Reilly, served as his nurse during the multiple surgeries and radiation treatments.

Reilly is confined to his home under around-the-clock medical care and had to be hospitalized during trial.

Good job, Denise.

The US Supreme Court predictably refused to review a California Court of Appeals' ruling throwing out the bulk of a San Diego jury's verdict awarding developer Rocky de la Fuente $95 Million after the City of San Diego breached a development agreement and took steps to devalue the land upon which it was to built.

A Superior Court jury initially awarded De La Fuente $95 million in his dispute with the city over development of a 312-acre business park near the international border. With legal fees and interest, the potential payment by the city could have reached $150 million.

The developer had sued, alleging the city breached a development agreement he had over the park, and took a series of steps that devalued his land. Soon after the verdict, a judge threw out a portion of the verdict awarding $29.2 million over violations of the development agreement, but let the bulk of the award stand.

The city quickly hired outside lawyers to pursue the appeal. In June 2006, the 4th District Court of Appeal in Riverside overturned the rest of the case, concluding there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict. The state Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

The city is not quite out of the woods, however. A retrial on the $29 million claim over the reach of the development agreement still looms.

Didn't hear about this last week? Not surprising. The media loves to trumpet big verdicts, but doesn't mention when those big verdicts are reduced (see the Ford roll-over verdict below).

Last week, the San Diego District Attorney and California Attorney General settled a consumer protection lawsuit against Baskin Robbins from the company's selling of hand-packed, pint sized containers of ice cream.

Baskin Robbins agreed to pay over $491,000 in fines and costs.

Inspections of 188 locations in 29 different counties found that 83% of all hand packed pint sized ice cream packages were underweight by approximately 4 ounces, or 25%.

I'm not sure what Baskin Robbins pint sized sales are in California, but the company was definitely reaping a significant profit by underselling ice cream to its customers. If a pint of ice cream sells for $3 per pint, Baskin Robbins was collecting $3 for a "pint" that was only worth $2.25.

If you assume that Baskin Robbins sells 10,000 pints per week in California (I don't know whether this is accurate, but sounds reasonable for a state of 38 million people and a market leading company with approximately 200 locations statewide), Baskin Robbins was reaping an undue profit of $7,500 per week or $30,000 a month.

$30,000 a month. That's a huge effect from a missing 4 ounces.

House Agricultural Committee passed an eminent domain reform bill on Friday. The bill will now go to the House floor for a vote.

While many say that the bill does not go far enough to protect property owners after the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo, it would be an improvement.

San Diegans need as much protection against government seizure of property to increase tax revenues. While there may be civic improvements as a result, the possiblity of abuse and overreaching is just too likely.

Know all those HUGE, "outrageous" verdicts that tort reformers cite as proof that juries are out of their minds and are too plaintiff-friendly? This is the story of one such verdict and, unfortunately, it is not unusual.

In 2004, a San Diego jury awarded Benetta Buell-Wilson and her family nearly $370 Million dollars in a Ford Explorer roll-over auto accident case. Now, the Supreme Court will review the verdict and possibly reduce it. The Supreme Court will be the third court to do so after the trial court and the Fourth District Court of Appeals both reduced the verdict from $122 Million in compensatory damages and $246 Million in punitive damages to $27.6 Million (compensatory) and $55 Million (punitive).

What happened to Benetta?:

On a January afternoon in 2002, Buell-Wilson was driving at a normal speed on Interstate 8 east of San Diego when she swerved to avoid a metal object that had fallen off a motor home. Her 1997 Explorer fishtailed and rolled over four times. Part of its roof was crushed, and Buell-Wilson suffered a severe spinal injury.

As a result of the accident, Benetta is now paralyzed and confined to a wheel-chair.

Now, Ford had previously won 13 trials without a loss. And they weren't shy about sharing that fact during litigation in the hopes of forcing Benetta and her husband to settle.

Plaintiffs were 0-13 and Benetta and her attorneys were risking a huge disappointment. These cases are not cheap to try. I've heard some estimates that Benetta's attorneys paid upwards of $750,000 to experts to prepare and try the case. And if they lost, the lawyers would lose that investment, Benetta would be forced to pay for all future care by herself out of her own pocket, and, worse still, Benetta would be forced to pay Ford's litigation costs.

Given all this risk, and the evidence that Ford knew of problems with its' vehicles for roof crush and roll over propensity, is $370 Million dollars outrageous to pay for a permanent injury and to punish Ford for its' callousness?

In fact, the problem had been well-documented for years:

No recall has ever been ordered for these vehicles. How many are still out on the road? How many more roof crush injuries or deaths will still occur? Will Ford EVER be forced to pay enough that they will consider the safety of their customers?

The Supreme Court should uphold the reduced verdict. Ford is already emboldened by the two prior reductions. No need to make it worse for consumer safety.

In an article printed in today's newspaper, the San Diego Union Tribune takes on Progressive Insurance's property damage program.

According to the article, critics argue that Progressive's program violates California's anti-steering laws by allowing its adjusters to write their own property damage estimates and direct their insureds to pre-approved body shops for the work. In addition--and wait until you hear about this--critics claim that Progressive's program seeks to reduce repair costs by cutting corners! Shocker!

Sarcasm aside, this seems to be the usual modus operandi for insurance companies. Why replace when cosmetic patching will do? Why use new parts when refurbished products can be found? And don't get me started on the repeated failure of insurance adjusters to ignore alignment and other structural issues in favor of concentrating on cosmetic damages. Too many of our office's auto accident clients have complained that their car just doesn't drive the same afterwards for it to be a coincidence.

The public shouldn't be so gullible to believe the commercials--the insurance companies are not out there to act in your best interests. They make money by collecting premiums and paying out less than the premiums they collect. If they have to actually use quality labor and parts, it just makes it that much harder.

Yesterday, the Bush administration instructed all levels of the federal government that they cannot, under any circumstances, hire attorneys on a contingency fee basis. Reportedly, this does not happen very often but it has not prevented the tort reform supporters like The US Chamber of Commerce and US Chamber for Legal Reform from applauding the move.

The Chamber argues that attorneys should not have a financial stake when representing states.

Make no mistake. While the Chamber may have an interest in the small number of cases where states and the federal government use contingency fee lawyers to sue businesses, it is far more concerned about the larger number of cases where everyday, ordinary people hire contingency fee lawyers. In the aggregate, these cases presumably add up to a greater amount of damages.

Traditionally, there are two methods to pay for an attorney:
1. On an hourly basis at rates of $200 per hour and up, plus advancing costs; or
2. On a contingency fee basis with the attorney being paid a percentage of any money recovered and the attorney advancing costs.

It's crucial to the function of the legal system that everyone with a meritorious claim have access to the legal system, regardless of cost. Imagine a world where the victims of rear-end car crashes and victims of benzene poisoning like those in Erin Brockovich can't hire a lawyer to fight the lawyers hired by insurance companies or big business because they can't afford hourly rates.

Contingency fees allow clients to hire an attorney when they otherwise could not. Clients do not need to come up with a retainer and pay the monthly invoices as they come due.

Contingency fees also allow clients to distribute the risk with their attorneys in more favorable terms. When a client pays an attorney by the hour, the attorney gets paid--regardless of result. If the client loses or does not do as well as hoped for, the attorney gets paid for his time anyway. On the other hand, if the client loses, the attorney gets paid nothing.

Last, it's weird that the Chamber (read: Republican big-business supporters) are against clients having the freedom to enter into contingency fee agreements. These are the same people who want the free market to guide economics and regulations. If a client determines that it is best to hire an attorney by pledging equity in their case, who is the Chamber to say that is wrong?

Nobody, that's who.

Every person I know gets nervous when it is time to sit for a deposition. They worry that they'll have to deal with the worst imaginable movie deposition with opposing counsel yelling at them, wagging their finger, and calling them a liar.

Very rarely does that ever happen. Most of the time, it is a very simple question and answer session.

Our office instructs clients that there are two simple rules for performing at deposition:
1. Listen carefully and answer directly.
2. Be truthful.

If you follow those rules, you'll be fine. But here are a few examples of what not to do at deposition.

First, don't lose your temper. Don't rise to the bait.

Second, speak clearly and act......well, sane.

Third, don't get in a fight with the attorney.

Fourth, don't act superior...or a jerk.

It's enough to drive court reporters and videographers nuts....or just lame (hat tip to Professor Bainbridge for showing this video):

The December 30, 2006, accident on the San Diego Freeway involving singer Brandy has spawned its' third wrongful death lawsuit related to the death of Awatef Aboudihaj.

Aboudihaj's husband, Marouane Hdidou, has filed a wrongful death claim against Brandy. Hdidou's lawsuit joins two prior lawsuits filed on behalf of Aboudihaj's parents and her two children.

The accident,took place on the San Diego Freeway, leaving Aboudihaj dead and several other motorists severely injured. California Highway Patrol has told prosecutors that Brandy should be charged with misdemeanor manslaughter for causing the multi-car collision. According to police, Brandy was traveling at 65mph, failed to notice that traffic had slowed, which caused her to hit Aboudihaj’s Honda with her Land Rover. The Honda then hit another car, struck the center divide, and was hit by Mallory Ham’s car. According to Ham, she was trying to avoid another vehicle that had gone into her lane.

Ham is also named in the lawsuit. 20 other unnamed "Doe" drivers may also be named. Hdidou alleges that these drivers were driving too vast and following too close for conditions.

Earlier today, the California Assembly rejected AB 1505 by failing to pass it out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

The bill received so little support that when Van Tran (R-Costa Mesa) moved the bill, it did not receive a second and therefore failed without a vote.

The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) continues to press the meat of AB 1505 through a costly initiative process.

Assemblymember Nicole Parra (D-Hanford) stated, in bringing the bill, that it would do nothing to prevent legitimate class actions from being brought. However, she hoped that it would prevent lawyers from gaining large verdicts and plaintiff class membes seeing little compensation as a result. She further stated that AB 1505 attempted to align state with federal law.

However, according to the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC), AB 1505 would undermine the civil justice system by preventing an ordinary citizens' right to bring a class action lawsuit in California. Among the provisions of AB 1505 that CAOC objected to:

1. The bill would have required each individual class member to prove their individual claim and extent of damages. Most importantly, it would have required trial evidence on both the plaintiff and defense side to be "substantially the same".

2. The bill would have given the defendant the right to bypass class counsel to communicate directly with class members to make a settlement offer directly to the defense. This would have bypassed and destroyed the attorney-client relationship. It would have also allowed the defendant to make low ball offers and use threats to force class members to disregard their counsel's advice.

3. The bill would also have stayed discovery of the merits of the case until the class was certified. This provision ignores the fact that the discovery process allows plaintiffs the ability to prove the existence of a broader class by being able to identify potential class members.

Our office is pleased by the defeat of this bill. Tort Reform supporters fail to recognize the need for class action attorneys to represent the rights of numerous consumers who have been wronged by the illegal acts of large companies. The importance of class action attorneys has been heightened in recent decades due to the reluctance of the government to enforce its' own laws, leaving it to class action attorneys as "private attorney generals."

If there is an objection to class action attorneys being paid for their services, it should be that we--as taxpayers--have already paid the government to do the job through our taxes and they have failed to do so.

Prevailing parties just received help from the California Court of Appeals in obtaining full cost reimbursement after judgment. Our office wants to inform our clients, and other plaintiff attorneys, of this development so that they can maximize their hard won judgments.

In El Dorado Meat Co. v. Yosemite Meat and Locker Service, No. F049334, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld a trial court's ruling to award Yosemite Meat (as the prevailing party), nearly $150,000 in costs pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Section 1033.5(a)(12).

The facts of the case are these:

El Dorado filed suit against Yosemite Meat alleging a variety of causes of action, including violations of the California Unfair Competition Law . The lawsuit arose from El Dorado's claims that Yosemite Meats fraudulently sold boar meat to otherwise unsuspecting customers and illegally reduced their labor costs by employing undocumented immigrants. El Dorado claimed that these actions led it to be uncompetitive in the market and drove it out of business.

After trial before a jury (for some causes of action) and the court (for others), the court found in favor of Yosemite and entered judgment in favor of Yosemite.

As the prevailing party, Yosemite Meats served and filed a memorandum of costs seeking to recover $194,704. El Dorado filed a motion to strike and tax costs pertaining to Yosemite Meat's attempt to recover $143,809 for "models, blowups, and photocopies of exhibits."

Continue reading "Important New California Case Helps Prevailing Injury Victims; Could Lead to Abuse" »

There are hundreds of automobile injury accidents in San Diego each month where victims don't have a prayer of being fully compensated for their injuries. That is, unless they have the ONE coverage that they absolutely need.

That coverage is....uninsured motorist coverage.

California law has required motorists to cover automobile liability insurance for years. But this has not stopped the number of uninsured motorists in California to reach epidemic proportions. Some estimate that 23 percent of motorists in Los Angeles are uninsured and 15 percent of injury accidents in California involve uninsured motorists. This has led some legislators to look for a legislative solution.

Continue reading "California Automobile Insurance--The One Coverage You Absolutely Need." »

These are bad times if you are a pit bull, or own one, in Denver.

Scared by the damage that pit bulls can inflict when they attack, the City Council of Aurora approved a ban of new pit bulls within the city limits. Owners of existing pit bulls can keep their pet if the meet new rules, including a special, breed-specific licensing fee of $200, carrying $100,000 of liability insurance, be at least 21 years of age, and post warning signs in the front of their property.

With the exception of the breed-specific licensing fee, none of these requirements are outrageous. They are simply the minimum requirements of being a responsible dog owner--of any breed.

However, the ban is the result of not only urban myths about the breed, but, most importantly, bad owners.

So are pit bulls the product of the breed or bad owners? And who is responsible for the damages they cause--the dog or the owner?

First, let's deal with the public's fear of the breed. As many are aware, this muscular breed looks like this:

Quite menancing looking, huh?

Continue reading "Bad Owners Lead to Ban, Euthanization of Pit Bulls" »

A serious "t-bone" car accident last Friday, illustrates--yet again--the importance of wearing seatbelts.

As if Governor Corzine's serious injury accident hadn't already done so.

A car ran a red light and broadsided a mini-van at the corner of 5th Street and A Street.

According to the police, the two adults and five children involved in the accident were wearing seatbelts--which may have saved their lives.

Surprisingly, the driver of the car was not seriously hurt.

We at the Jurewitz Law Group regularly see car accident injury victims that are lucky to be alive, but for the fact that they were wearing seatbelts. Please make sure you wear your seatbelt at all times.

Most of you probably have heard about Judge Pearson, who is suing a Washington, DC area dry cleaner for $67 Million over the loss of three pants. Most are shocked and outraged by the amount of money being sought by Judge Pearson. Some have used the opportunity to attack the civil justice system and call for tort reform.

I want to take a slightly different tack than others discussing this case and use this opportunity to discuss the real winners and losers from sensational lawsuits like this one.

The real winner, at this point, seems to be big media. Whether it is The View, ABC News, or CNN, it seems like everyone is making money talking about this lawsuit. And why not? I mean, this is a $67 Million lawsuit! That's what it says in the complaint. That's real, huge, life changing money!

In reality, the damages attainable from this suit--assuming that liability on the part of the dry cleaner exists--are limited to the evidence at trial. It doesn't matter whether the complaint states that the lawsuit is seeking $10 or $10 Million. In other words, the amount stated in the complaint is irrelevant.

Continue reading "The $67 Million Pants--Good for Selling Newspapers, Bad for Consumers" »

Jurewitz Law Group, a San Diego based personal injury law firm representing clients throughout California, announces that it has recently moved and opened its' new San Diego office location.

The new office is located at:

The Koll Center
501 West Broadway, Suite 1780
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 233-5020
Toll Free: (888) 233-5020
Fax: (619) 233-5030

New and existing clients can meet with attorneys at the new office or, if preferable, at any location throughout San Diego County and parts of Orange, Riverside, and Imperial Counties. Face to face meetings outside Southern California are also possible, but require more lead time.