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
How Secure Is the AI System Your Law Firm Is Using?
In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
COVID-19 and Lease Negotiations: Early Termination Provisions
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
Pleading Importation: ITC Decisions Highlight Need for Adequate Evidentiary Support
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
The Power of Your Inner Circle: Turning Friends and Social Contacts Into Business Allies
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
Authentic Communications Today Increase Success for Value-Driven Clients
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.