San Diego Injury Lawyer Blog

Earlier today, my friend and New York medical malpractice attorney Gerry Oginski posted this link on Facebook to a New York medical malpractice verdict against a podiatrist. The verdict was noteworthy in that the jury awarded $3,000,000 for the victim's pain and suffering ($1.5 million for past pain and suffering and $1.5 million for future pain and suffering).

This sparked a discussion amongst several lawyers from throughout the country about how inequitable tort reform laws are to the victim solely because of where they choose to live or receive medical treatment.

In New York, there is no tort reform cap on pain and suffering damages. Therefore, the $3,000,000 verdict, so long as it is supported by evidence, will not be reduced. However, here in California, we have MICRA--California's tort reform measure which places certain limits and requirements on medical malpractice lawyers and their injured clients. Specifically, the California legislature has placed a cap on pain and suffering at $250,000. It does not matter how badly injured you are, whether you need constant medication to live with moderate pain the rest of your life, had 2 wrong limbs amputated, etc. California has decided that under NO circumstances is anyone's pain and suffering worth more than $250,000 when injured by a doctor.

So, let's assume that we have 2 people who have suffered the same injury and have the same prognosis. The only difference is that one was injured by a New York doctor and the other by a California doctor. The former victim will get compensated $3,000,000 for his pain and suffering while the other will only recover $250,000.

That is just not fair or right.

The tort reform mess gets even worse in other states, such as in Indiana. In the Hoosier State, total damages are capped at $1.25 million for all damages. This is true even if current and future medical treatment exceeds $10 million and lost wages are $3 million or more.

This inequality in results, based solely on geographic location of where the injury occurred, cannot stand. Tort reform has created this and many other unfair results for injured people, all in the name of saving society from runaway litigation costs--which have been proven time and time again not to exist.

One of these days, the public will hopefully wake up and rescind these unfair tort reform laws. Until then, these unequal results will continue.

Continue reading "The Arbitrary and Unfair Impact of Tort Reform" »

George Washington once said:

Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all.

Letter of Instructions to the Captains of the Virginia Regiments [July 29, 1759]. The advocates of consumer rights, viewing the resources of defense firms and corporate defendants, can relate to the trepidation felt by the out-numbered and out-gunned Continental Army. Because of that disparity in resources, Consumer Attorneys of California ("CAOC") consolidates the voices of consumer attorneys throughout the state to (1) preserve and protect the constitutional right to trial by jury for all consumers, (2) champion the cause of those who deserve redress for injury to person or property, (3) encourage and promote changes to California law by legislative, initiative or court action, (4) oppose injustice in existing or contemplated legislation, (5) correct harsh, unjust and oppressive legislation or judicial decisions, (6) advance the common law and promote the public good through the civil justice system and concerted efforts to secure safe products, a safe workplace, a clean environment, and quality health care, (7) uphold the honor, integrity and dignity of the legal profession by encouraging mutual support and cooperation among members, (8) promote the highest standards of professional conduct, and (9) inspire excellence in advocacy. This post is a multi-blog effort to inform consumer attorneys about CAOC's value and encourage participation in CAOC through membership.

CAOC works tirelessly to protect or advance those causes of import to consumers and their attorneys in California. Often those efforts, though valuable, receive little fanfare. For example, CAOC recently sponsored SB 510, which affects the re-sale of what are known as "structured settlements," in which victims receive financial compensation over a period of time for medical expenses and basic living needs, as determined by a jury. Before SB 510 was signed by the Governor, Courts expressed frustration at their inability to prevent the sale of structured settlements on terms that might ultimately lead to long-term financial hardship for the victim. Now, SB 510 gives judges the information they need to make a reasoned decision about the propriety of a structured settlement sale.

Measures like CAOC-sponsored SB 510 help protect the most vulnerable members of our society and ask for nothing in return. They exemplify the spirit of CAOC. However, CAOC is only as effective in its mission as its membership allows it to be. When consumer attorneys join the ranks of CAOC, its voice gains in power and clarity. But if consumer advocates sit on the sidelines, hoping to benefit from the work of others, CAOC is stretched thin, and we are all at risk as a result.

Now, consumer advocate bloggers from across the state are combining their voices to call upon each and every lawyer and firm that regularly represents plaintiffs to join CAOC, thereby strengthening the consumer's first line of defense. The blogs participating in this unified call to action are:

• The Complex Litigator (H. Scott Leviant)
• The UCL Practitioner (Kimberly Kralowec)
• Bailey Class Action Daily (Matt Bailey)
• California Employee Rights Blog (James J. Peters)
• An Appeal to Reason (Donna Bader)
• California Personal Injury and Insurance Blog (Jonathan G. Stein)
• California Debt Blog (Jonathan G. Stein)
• TrialLawyerTips.com (Mitch Jackson and Lisa Wilson)
• California Injury Blog (John Bisnar)
• San Diego Injury Lawyer Blog (Ross A. Jurewitz)
• San Diego Car Accident Lawyer Blog (Ross Jurewitz
• San Diego Injury Accident Lawyer Blog (Ross A. Jurewitz)
• California Nursing Home Abuse Lawyer Blog (Walton Law Firm LLP)
• San Diego Injury Law Blog (Walton Law Firm LLP)
• California Personal Injury Law Blog (Norman Gregory Fernandez)
• Biker Lawyer Blog (Norman Gregory Fernandez)
• California Credit Law (Mark F. Anderson, Carol Brewer & Andy Ogilvie)
• Lemon Law Blog (Mark F. Anderson, Carol Brewer & Andy Ogilvie)

Show your support of consumers' rights by joining and supporting CAOC. Together we can make an impact that we cannot make alone.

Well, it looks like the Nevada Medical Malpractice Reform Law may not see its' fifth birthday--or at least its' damage cap provision may not. Nevada legislators are considering overturning or raising the $350,000 cap for "pain and suffering" damages arising from medical malpractice.

The reason? Recent scandalous, unethical, and dangerous behavior by doctors in the state have led legislators to realize that damage caps hurt consumers while protecting negligent doctors.

We've taken a look at these developments and what it might mean for California's MICRA damage cap of $250,000. You can read more about this California medical malpractice development at our San Diego personal injury lawyer website here.

About a month ago, we wrote about the emerging and ongoing efforts by Oklahoma Republican legislators and former medical malpractice defense attorney and Oklahoma Senate President Pro Tem Glenn Coffee (R-Oklahoma City) to initiate a new batch of tort reform measures. In our post, we argued that the Oklahoma tort reform plan does not go far enough because it does not require doctors to take substantive positions regarding their own negligence. You can read our entire post here.

However, the Oklahoma tort reform measure keeps growing additional reform measures--all of which hurt Oklahomans and are being sold to the public as a way to prevent "greedy plaintiffs' lawyers" from profiting from "frivolous lawsuits". Never mind the fact that the job of barring frivolous plaintiffs from recovering is the role of the insurance defense lawyer and judge, not the Oklahoma legislature. You can read more about the Oklahoma tort reform effort in this Seattle Times news story.

The most recent Oklahoma tort reform attacks include special class action rules for lawsuits brought against tobacco companies, a cap on non-economic damages (also known as "pain and suffering") at $300,000, expert certification before a lawsuit can proceed, and requiring consumers to "opt in" rather than "opt out" of class action litigation.

One of the more egregious tort reform measures interferes with an injury accident victim's ability to find a lawyer by placing compensation restrictions on that attorney. Contingency fees, meaning fees which are only collected upon a successful completion of litigation, are capped at 33 percent of the first $1 million dollars recovered under the proposed measure. For higher awards, the contingency fee award is limited at 20 percent.

Continue reading "Oklahoma Tort Reform: An Unfounded and Misguided Attack on Injury Accident Victims" »

The Daily Point of Orange County reported last Thursday, March 12 that the California State Senate is reviewing a new bill that would allow California and San Diego authorities to treat boating under the influence in our San Diego waters just like they would treat driving under the influence on our San Diego roads. If passed, the bill would allow San Diego and California authorities to suspend boaters' licenses if caught boating under the influence. You can learn more in this Daily Pilot story.

The California BUI bill was introduced by California State Senator John Benoit that represents Senate District 37, just north of San Diego County. Senator Benoit's bill will give the DMV the power to treat a BUI just as they would treat a DUI. Previously, the DMV had the power to do just that but last year, a court of appeals verdict deemed that they did not have the power to do so.

San Diego harbor officials and officials in other California counties would like to see the bill passed. They believe that even though boating is a recreational activity, there are still many responsibilities that a boater has. According to the California Department of Boating and Waterways there were 55 boating accident fatalities in 2007, half of which happened in Southern California. Also, about 20 of the 55 victims were intoxicated.

If you or a fellow boater are ever injured or killed in a San Diego boating accident, please call the San Diego boat accident attorneys at the Jurewitz Law Group at 619-233-5020 or contact them online here.

The Oklahoma legislature is currently considering a tort reform bill that would require people wishing to file a civil lawsuit for professional negligence (medical malpractice, accounting malpractice, legal malpractice, etc.) to obtain and attach an affidavit that the person has consulted with a qualified expert who has reviewed the facts of the case. The bill addresses all professional negligence but there can be no doubt that its' main goal is to reduce the number of medical malpractice lawsuits by prohibiting lawsuits without expert support.

The affidavit must include a statement that the expert has provided a written opinion to support the allegation of professional negligence. If the affidavit is not filed, the lawsuit may be dismissed. You can read about the bill here.

The bill, House Bill 1570, is similar to a bill vetoed by Oklahoma's governor last year. Six states, including Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, and Pennsylvania, already require expert certification before filing a professional negligence lawsuit. The cost of having an expert review medical records and provide a written opinion can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000 in most cases. The news story cites an example where an expert charged a medical malpractice victim $12,000 for his pre-litigation expert opinion.

The NewsOK.com news story prompted me to post this provocative tweet on Twitter, which then received several comments from Walter Olson of the legal reform website Overlawyered.com and Chris Davis of the Seattle personal injury law firm, the Davis Law Group.

Continue reading "The Oklahoma Expert Certification Tort Reform Bill: A Good Idea or Does It Not Go Far Enough?" »

California emergency room doctors have filed a class-action lawsuit against the State of California alleging that California's healthcare system--stretched and burdened by its' thin budget and high demand for services--is about to collapse on itself. The suit comes at a time when hospitals and emergency rooms are closing at alarming numbers, leading to limited emergency care for injured Californians.

The situation is only becoming worse with the State proposing $1.1 billion in cuts to MediCal, California's low-income health payment system.

This is the second lawsuit brought by doctors against the State of California within a year. In the first lawsuit, led by the California Medical Association, doctors were able to obtain an injunction against the State's proposal to cut MediCal reimbursement rates to healthcare providers by 10%. The State instead reduced current reimbursement rates by 1% to 5%.

Emergency room doctors have been particularly hard hit by the healthcare crisis since, unlike other doctors, they cannot chose to turn away low-income patients who rely on MediCal.

Federal preemption of state laws is a dry subject. It puts lawyers and law students asleep.

However, the consequences of preemption can be both real and significant.

The Supreme Court recently in Riegel v. Medtronic decided that a state tort injury actions for defective medical devices are barred when the FDA grants the device premarket approval through the federal Medical Devices Act.

With such a technical ruling, the national media has largely ignored the far-reaching significance of this ruling. However, MSNBC's Keith Olberman recently took on the federal preemption issue in Riegel--and took the opportunity to bash Bush (shocker!)--in his usual one-sided presentation of facts.

Like Ronald Miller of the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog, who drew our attention to the video, I'm not a big fan of Olberman. In fact, I'd probably agree to any derogatory term used to describe him and he hasn't been funny or clever since his time on ESPN. But he deserves some credit for taking notice of this ruling.

In an effort to reduce car accidents due to negligence and inattentiveness, California has made text messaging while driving effective today.

A similar law passed earlier in the year made it illegal to drive while talking on a cellular phone handset.

In a separate law going into effect today, drivers are now allowed to fix GPS navigation units on the bottom left or right corners of the windshield. Under the previous law, it was illegal to mount a navigation system anywhere on the windshield.

Today is the first day for enforcement of California's Hands Free Cell Phone law.

Starting today, motorists talking on a cell phone without a hands free system will be fined $20 for the first offense and $50 subsequent offenses.

Quick little reminder.

On July 1, the California Hands-Free Cell Phone Law goes into effect requiring everyone to use a hands-free system when driving a vehicle. Sending a text message while driving will also be a citable offense.

Although the increased safety of using a hands-free device while driving is debatable--not talking on the phone at all is the safest route--it will be the law. Please make sure to purchase your hands-free device before July 1.

Doctors, like anyone, are not infallible. Every day, thousands of San Diegans put their trust, their bodies, and their health in the hands of doctors. Fortunately, there are many fine and skilled doctors in San Diego. However, that does not prevent incidents of medical malpractice from occurring--some of which result in lifetime injuries or death.

What most people do not realize is that doctors, unlike almost any other profession, are protected by a damages cap. Since 1975, California law has limited non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering) to $250,000. Under this law, NO medical malpractice victim's pain and suffering can be compensated more than this amount.

In 1975, the California legislature enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) installing this cap and also other protections for doctors found to have committed malpractice. So, for 33 years the cap has remained $250,000--despite the fact that $250,000 in 1975 dollars is now worth $1,012,500! From January 1975 to January 2008, the annual rate of inflation has been 4.33% and $4.05 in 2008 dollars will buy the same as $1 in 1975.

Why hasn't MICRA kept pace with inflation? One reason is that the legislature failed, and continues to fail, to provide a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for MICRA even though COLAs are included in a variety of laws, contracts, and almost any other long-term financial arrangement.

Continue reading "Injured San Diego Patients Deserve MICRA Reform" »

Recently, it was discovered that six cases of Hepatitis C were caused by grossly negligent practices at the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada. Among the cost and safety cutting procedures alleged were directions to staff to use syringes and vials of anesthesia more than once--despite the risk of spreading diseases.

Out of this scandal, Southern Nevadans have discovered a problem that should also concern patients in San Diego--how do patients find out about the doctors treating them?

In California, the state Medical Board does not provide any information about past or pending lawsuits for medical malpractice unless a judgment was entered or settlement reached in excess of $30,000. This makes is it difficult for patients to discovery evidence of poor, although perhaps not negligent, performance by their doctors. Due to the scarlet letter this hangs on the chest of a careless doctor, medical malpractice cases, no matter how legitimate or clear-cut, are litigated tooth and nail through trial.

This is a poor way of sharing information with patients about the doctors treating them. It is believed that 90% of all malpractice claims come from the conduct of 10% of doctors. While these may not be exact figures, they do seem logical. Persons who make mistakes or who cut corners tend to repeat these mistakes over and over. For example, in San Diego, a dentist has been successfully sued four times for substandard care.

Continue reading "San Diego Patients Should Know About Their Doctors" »

It is not often that our office reports on the legal happenings of other states. But this time it is important to let San Diegans know about several efforts to cap the percentage of a recovery contingency fee lawyers can receive--and to understand why such limitations are short-sighted and dangerous.

The contingency fee agreement is the primary manner in which average people can hire attorneys to litigate their interests. Under a contingency fee agreement, the client is able to hire an attorney who will work for them for months or sometimes years at a time without receiving payment for services until the attorney actually obtains a monetary settlement or judgment for the client. The more the attorney recovers for the client, the greater the fee he is entitled to receive. Further, if the attorney does not obtain a monetary recovery, the client does not owe the lawyer anything for the legal services provided.

Without the contingency fee arrangement, clients would be forced to hire attorneys solely by paying for legal services by the hour at rates of anywhere from $200 to $350 per hour, in most cases. Most clients, with legitimate cases, could not afford to hire an attorney under an hourly fee arrangement.

Last, the majority of clients--even those who can afford to pay for legal services at an hourly rate--prefer contingency fee arrangements.

Which makes Oregon Initiative 51 all the more dangerous.

Continue reading "San Diego Injury Victims Might Be Affected By Latest Fee Cap Initiatives" »

Every year, the wonderful California legislature hands down new laws that affect how all Californians live their lives. In an effort to advise the Jurewitz Law Group's clients and this blog's readers, here are a few key laws effective January 1, 2008:

1. California minimum wage has been increased $0.50 per hour to $8 per hour for employees.

2. Gift card recipients now have the legal right to receive the balance in cash when that balance is $10 or less.

3. It is now illegal to smoke in a car with a passenger who is under 18 years old. Police cannot pull over drivers solely for smoking with a minor present, but can issue a citation after pulling over a driver for another violation.

4. It is also now illegal to drive in California while using a cell phone without a hands-free device. It is unclear whether speaking on a cell phone in speaker mode is legal. Drivers under 18 may not use wireless telephones while driving, not even with hands-free devices.

5. Cities and counties that approve development in flood prone areas now assume a portion of liability for damages to property due to flooding.

6. Consumers who buy tickets to concerts from oldies bands may have a right to collect damages under civil fraud theories thanks to AB702. If bands market themselves as an oldies band, they must have at least one member of the original band who has the legal right to use the name of the band. Alternatively, bands that label themselves tribute or salute bands can remove themselves from liability.

7. Cities and counties can now no longer enact ordinances prohibiting renting homes or apartments to illegal aliens. In addition, cities and counties can not require landlords to inquire into the legal residence status of renters.

8. Californians get additional privacy protections. Employers can now no longer display more than the last 4 digits of a social security number on an employee's paycheck.

9. An employee may collect temporary disability payments over the course of five years instead of just two, though the maximum number of weeks for which the employee may collect the benefit is still 104.

10. Anyone renewing or applying for a driver's license must sign a declaration acknowledging that they may be charged with murder if anyone is killed as a result of their driving under the influence.

11. Bicyclists must use lights while riding anywhere after dark, including sidewalks, bikeways, or highways. Prior law just required them to do so while on the roadways.

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.

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.