What Proposition 46's Failure Means

#Proposition46 did not pass, and now it's back to the unfair treatment of medical malpractice victims and their families. Unfortunately, the medical malpractice insurers spent an overwhelming amount of money on false and misleading advertising that worked to dupe the California voters.

For now, the $250,000.00 limit on pain and suffering (general) damages will remain and many malpractice cases simply cannot be cost-effectively pursued.  A complex malpractice case can require multiple expert witnesses, each costing thousands of dollars for the services they provide before trial.  At least for the foreseeable future, many malpractice victims and their families will have a difficult time finding an experienced lawyer willing to take on their case.  Consequently, many careless doctors will not have to own up to their responsibility, and they will continue to practice at an unacceptably low level.

Aside from the damages cap, unlike other service providers whose performance can effect lives, physicians do not have to undergo drug and alcohol testing.  Logically, how can it be justified to test truck drivers (who can cause an accident while impaired) and not doctors, whose errors are already the third leading cause of death in this country?

Doctor Accountability - Proposition 46

Proposition 46 is a Must

The status quo in California simply will not do for another 38 years.  Careless and even impaired doctors are not being held accountable, and this needs to end for the benefit of all who receive health care in this State.  The California Medical Board is so ineffective that they have been threatened with dissolution by the State legislature.  It is up to the victims of malpractice and their families to ensure accountability for the doctors who have made so many suffer.  Medical errors are the number three cause of death in this country!

Don't be fooled by an overwhelming and misleading ad campaign by the malpractice insurance industry. No amount of advertising rhetoric can change the fact that California has a 38-year-old law on the books that unfairly protects negligent doctors from being held accountable. #VOTEYESON46 

Improve the Quality of Health Care in California - Vote Yes on Proposition 46

Why Vote Yes on Proposition 46?

What does a no vote on Proposition 46 truly mean? Years more of malpractice victims being deprived of fair compensation. Don't fall for the malpractice insurance industry's lies. A YES VOTE on Proposition 46 will accomplish it's intended purpose...a better quality of health care for everyone!

Malpractice limits in California have remained the same for more than 38 years. There has been no adjustment for the cost of living/inflation and no increase to keep California more in line with other States. Is it any wonder the quality of health care in this State has diminished over that same period of time? The malpractice insurance industry has garnered way too much voter support in the past with lies about malpractice lawsuits and jury verdicts. It is time to shift the tide back to the patients and victims of careless doctors.

The current damages cap on malpractice cases in this State is just $250,000.00, regardless of whether a negligent doctor disables or kills their patient.  Malpractice insurance companies would love nothing more than to keep it that way and pad their profits for the next 38 years.  Say no to this horribly unfair, antiquated law and VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 46.
‪#‎VOTEYESON46‬
https://www.yeson46.org/yes-on-46-tv/

CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 46 - WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE YES

Medical Malpractice and Proposition 46 - What You Should Know

Next week, Californians will have the opportunity to vote on a ballot measure directed at the State's 38-year-old law which currently limits the general damages recoverable in a medical malpractice action to $250,000.00. Also contained within Proposition 46 are provisions aimed at drug testing doctors and imposing certain rules on the prescribing of controlled substances. While opponents have attacked the measure as a whole, the primary argument from the opposition is directed at the increase in the malpractice damages cap.

The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1976 and The Damages Cap

The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1976 (MICRA), was enacted by the California legislature as a way to protect doctors (actually their malpractice insurance carriers) from high damage awards. There can be no disputing the result of the initiative's passage: it worked. Since MICRA became the law in this State, malpractice awards for physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, physical impairment, inconvenience, grief, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress have been limited to no more than $250,000.00.  This is true regardless of the age of the victim or whether the patient died as a result of the malpractice.  Simply stated, that limit no longer represents even a remotely fair amount of compensation to victims of medical neglect.  

When a child is blinded or loses a limb or a mother dies leaving behind a husband and her children, it is easy to see that compensation to the aggrieved family should be much higher than $250,000.00, particularly in today's economy.  If the absurdity of this antiquated law is not readily apparent on its face, MICRA's limitation on damages need only be compared to that of California's neighboring States.  Nevada's limit is $350,000.00, Arizona's is $500,000.00 and Oregon has determined that ANY limit is unconstitutional.  California should not have a substantially lower limit than neighboring States where the cost of living is much less.  It makes no sense that malpractice insurance carriers (who have spent MILLIONS opposing Proposition 46) are dictating what you and your family will recover should you fall victim to a negligent doctor.  If the unfairness of this antiquated law is still not clear, consider the following realities of medical malpractice lawsuits in general:

• Physicians prevail at trial the vast majority of the time (better than 90% in Orange County)
• Few attorneys will even take medical malpractice cases because of the expense of experts (who often charge thousands of dollars just to review a potential case)
• Locating qualified experts willing to testify on behalf of the victim is extremely difficult
• Defense experts will often bend the truth in order to defend a colleague

The civil justice system grossly mistreats victims of medical malpractice, and the quality of care has devolved over the years.  Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in this country, and it is time to turn this around.  VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 46. 

Police Officer in San Bernardino Seriously by Suspected DUI Driver

SB Police Officer Struck By Suspected Drunk Driver

A police officer in San Bernardino was seriously injured when he was struck by a suspected DUI driver late last night.  According to KNBC News, the collision occurred at about 10:40 p.m. near the intersection of Mt. Vernon Avenue and 5th Street.  The officer had apparently arrested two people and was placing them in the back seat of his police cruiser when 18-year-old Steven Portillo of San Bernardino.crashed his car into the officer.  Portillo tried to flee the scene but was quickly apprehended and taken into custody on suspicion of driving under the influence.

What To Do When You Have Been a Victim of an Auto Accident 

When you have been involved in an automobile accident it is important to remember there are always two sides to every story.  For that reason, you should document as much as you safely can at the accident scene.  Taking cell phone photographs and getting witness information is something you should do if you are able to while still at the scene.  Cases will sometimes depend on reconstructing the accident based on witness accounts and property damage.  

If you have questions about your potential case, contacting an experienced auto accident attorney is often the best way to find out whether you the right to be compensated for any injuries or damages sustained.  Attorney Paul W. Ralph has more than 23 years of experience at handling auto accident cases, and he can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a free consultation.  

SOURCE: San Bernardino Police Officer Struck by Car During Arrest, KNBC News, June 24, 2014, by Samia Khan

Inadequate Security and the Bryan Stow Case

Just over three years ago, Bryan Stow was beaten and critically injured following a baseball game at Dodger Stadium.  Tragically, Stow suffered a severe traumatic brain injury as a result of the attack.  The two assailants responsible for the assault are now serving their sentences for their crimes, and the civil case against the Los Angeles Dodgers organization is well underway.  As is being reported by KNBC news, the civil trial in Los Angeles is being prosecuted because of alleged inadequate security that may have allowed this horrific incident to have occurred.

Inadequate Security Law in California

Under California law, a property/business owner (like those in charge of Dodger Stadium) has an obligation to ensure their property is maintained in a reasonably safe manner, and this includes an obligation to protect patrons from the violent acts of criminals.  Generally, these civil cases fall into two types: those in which there is a history of violence and therefore a duty to protect and those in which there is an ongoing escalation of violence, or potential violence, and the landowner has a duty to intervene.   There is not a duty on the part of every landowner or business operator to provide security guards to protect their patrons, unless the obligation is imposed because of prior similar incidents or other indications of a reasonably foreseeable risk of violent criminal assaults at the location.  In the Stow matter, the lawyers prosecuting the case will have to show there had been previous acts of violence or that on March 31, 2011, stadium employees should have been aware Stow (or others) were in imminent danger of being assaulted and failed to reasonably intervene.  

When You Have Been Assaulted on Business Property

Whether it is in a stadium, a bar, a restaurant or some other business establishment, if you are assaulted while on someone else's property, you may have a valid civil case against the business or landowner.  It must be shown there was a negligent failure to provide adequate protection that led to your injuries, but these cases often merit pursuing.  If you have been injured or a loved one killed because of a criminal assault on business property, contacting an experienced Orange County civil attorney with a security background may be the best step toward obtaining compensation for the injuries and damages suffered.

SOURCE:  Dodger Stadium Security Questioned in Beating Trial, KNBC News, June 3, 2014, by Patrick Healey

Bus Accident in Inglewood Sends Victim to the Hospital

BUS ACCIDENT IN INGLEWOOD INJURES ONE 

This morning at about 7:30 a.m. a Metro bus slammed into a passenger car in Inglewood causing injuries to at least one person.  According to KTLA News, the accident happened on Hawthorne Boulevard near 102nd Street .  From the photograph of the collision, it looks like the bus struck the car broadside.  The damage to the black vehicle was fairly substantial, and one person was transported from the scene to the hospital in unknown condition.  It is not clear which vehicle the victim was in at the time of the crash, and no further details were readily available.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN INJURED IN A BUS ACCIDENT

If you or a loved one has been injured in a bus accident, contacting an experienced injury attorney with experience at handling these types of cases could be the most important first step toward recovering compensation for any injuries and damages sustained.

SOURCE:  Metro Bus Collides With Car in Inglewood, 1Injured, KTLA News, May 1, 2014, by Anthony Kurzweil