Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Med Mal News
CA High Court to Consider Legality of Cap on Non-Economic Damages
California's Supreme Court will review the case of Hughes v. Pham, in which the petitioner is challenging the constitutionality of California's $250,000 cap on non-economic damages in cases of medical malpractice. The cap was put in place in 1975 with the passage of MICRA (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act), a law intended to control the rise in medical malpractice insurance premiums paid by California health care providers.
That goal was apparently out of reach, however, until the state's voters approved a law in 1988 allowing for strict regulation of medical malpractice insurance rates. The original $250,000 cap on damages has not been adjusted for inflation since MICRA's passage, and voters squashed an attempt to adjust it up to current value in November 2014.
The Hughes case involves a young man who was injured while riding an all-terrain vehicle. A jury found that his subsequent paralysis was due in part to medical negligence and awarded him $2.75 million for his pain and suffering. This award was reduced to $250,000, in accordance with MICRA. The Act's limitation on non-economic damages has been criticized for singling out victims of medical malpractice ' as opposed to victims of other negligent acts ' as less entitled to full compensation for injuries suffered through the negligence of others. In addition, it tends to make lawsuits on behalf of children and the elderly financially unattractive to attorneys, since the $250,000 limit on non-economic damages is low and damages related to the victim's lost wages will not be in play.
'
CA High Court to Consider Legality of Cap on Non-Economic Damages
California's Supreme Court will review the case of Hughes v. Pham, in which the petitioner is challenging the constitutionality of California's $250,000 cap on non-economic damages in cases of medical malpractice. The cap was put in place in 1975 with the passage of MICRA (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act), a law intended to control the rise in medical malpractice insurance premiums paid by California health care providers.
That goal was apparently out of reach, however, until the state's voters approved a law in 1988 allowing for strict regulation of medical malpractice insurance rates. The original $250,000 cap on damages has not been adjusted for inflation since MICRA's passage, and voters squashed an attempt to adjust it up to current value in November 2014.
The Hughes case involves a young man who was injured while riding an all-terrain vehicle. A jury found that his subsequent paralysis was due in part to medical negligence and awarded him $2.75 million for his pain and suffering. This award was reduced to $250,000, in accordance with MICRA. The Act's limitation on non-economic damages has been criticized for singling out victims of medical malpractice ' as opposed to victims of other negligent acts ' as less entitled to full compensation for injuries suffered through the negligence of others. In addition, it tends to make lawsuits on behalf of children and the elderly financially unattractive to attorneys, since the $250,000 limit on non-economic damages is low and damages related to the victim's lost wages will not be in play.
'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.