Posts Tagged ‘limits’

What is the Value of an Injured Pet?

October 31, 2012

by Jean-Simon Serrano

In what seems to be a trend of new cases expanding the rights of pet owners, the Court of Appeal for the Second District recently ruled that the usual standard of recovery for a dead or injured pet (market value) is inadequate when applied to injured pets.

The recent case, Martinez v. Robledo, (2012) 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1098, which was actually the consolidation of two similar cases, presented the legal issue: What is the measure of damages for the wrongful injury of a pet?

In both of the consolidated cases, the trial court ruled that the measure of damages would be limited to the market value of the injured dogs.

On Appeal, the Court held that a pet owner is not limited to the market value of the pet and may recover the reasonable and necessary costs incurred for the treatment and care of the pet attributable to the injury.

The Court reasoned:

“There can be little doubt that most pets have minimal to no market value, particularly elderly pets. As amicus notes, while people typically place substantial value on their own animal companions, as evidenced by the large sums of money spent on food, medical care, toys, boarding and grooming, etc., there is generally no market for other people’s pets.   We agree that the determination of a pet’s value cannot be made solely by looking to the marketplace. If the rule were otherwise, an injured animal’s owner would bear most or all of the costs for the medical care required to treat the injury caused by a tortfeasor, while the tortfeasor’s liability for such costs would in most cases be minimal, no matter how horrific the wrongdoer’s conduct or how gross the negligence of a veterinarian or other animal professional.”

Using the notion that tort law was designed such that injured parties are to be “made whole,” the Court held, “that allowing an injured pet’s owner to recover the reasonable and necessary costs incurred in the treatment and care for the animal attributable to the injury is a rational and appropriate measure of damages. Such evidence is admissible under Civil Code section 3333 as proof of a plaintiff’s compensable damages. And a defendant may present evidence showing the costs were unreasonable under the circumstances.”

Thus, with this ruling, those who have the misfortune of having their pets injured by another are no longer constrained to the mere market value of their fuzzy friends.  Instead, owners may now recover reasonable costs incurred for the treatment and care of the pet which arose as a result of the injury.

As an animal lover, I believe this ruling is long since overdue and I am pleased to see the Court recognizing that pets have some intrinsic value beyond their mere market or replacement price.

The Howell Decision: Is it Worse for Plaintiffs than MICRA?

November 4, 2011

By Jean-Simon Serrano

The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) was passed in 1975 and limits non-economic damages (pain, suffering and death of a loved one) in California medical malpractice cases to $250,000.00. Prior to December 1975, juries were free to weigh all evidence and award an amount of non-economic damages appropriate for the injury to the victim.

The $250,000.00 cap on non-economic damages has never been re-evaluated since its imposition in 1975 and, due to inflation, is now less than $70,000 in 1975 dollars. As if this wasn’t outrageous enough on its own, MICRA also served to alter the collateral source rule.

“Under the traditional collateral source rule, a jury, in calculating a plaintiff’s damages in a tort action, does not take into consideration benefits, such as medical insurance or disability payments, which the plaintiff has received from sources other than the defendant, i.e., collateral sources, to cover losses resulting from the injury. Cal. Civ. Code § 3333.1 [MICRA] alters this rule in medical malpractice cases. Under § 3333.1(a), a medical malpractice defendant is permitted to introduce evidence of such collateral source benefits received by or payable to the plaintiff; when a defendant chooses to introduce such evidence, the plaintiff may introduce evidence of the amounts he has paid, in insurance premiums, for example, to secure the benefits. Although § 3333.1(a), does not specify how the jury should use such evidence, the legislature apparently assumed that in most cases the jury would set plaintiff’s damages at a lower level because of its awareness of plaintiff’s net collateral source benefits. “ Fein v. Permanente Medical Group, (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 137, 164-165

Thus, MICRA served to both severely limit the non-economic damages recoverable by plaintiffs in medical malpractices cases and limit the amounts recovered by plaintiffs whom were responsible enough to have procured insurance to guard against losses. Fortunately, MICRA allows plaintiffs who had health insurance to recover the costs incurred in procuring such a benefit, in the form of amounts paid in insurance premiums.

Recently, the California Supreme Court has issued another blow to the collateral source rule and to responsible plaintiffs. In Howell v. Hamilton Meats and Provisions, Inc., (2011) 52 Cal. 4th 541, the Court held that a plaintiff could recover as damages for her past medical expenses no more than her medical providers had accepted as payment in full from plaintiff and her health insurer.

Unlike MICRA, which permits plaintiffs to introduce evidence regarding expenses incurred in procuring their insurance, plaintiffs in non-medical malpractice personal injury cases receive no such benefit. Thus, under Howell (supra), defendants receive the benefit of plaintiff’s thrift in being liable for greatly reduced medical expenses without having to reimburse plaintiffs for the (often substantial) costs of procuring such a benefit.

As it relates to the effect on the collateral source rule, the recent Howell (supra) ruling is potentially more damaging to plaintiffs than MICRA.

Under MICRA, a perpetrator of medical malpractice receives the benefit of lower medical damages if the victim had health insurance; however, he must reimburse the victim her costs of procuring such insurance.

Under Howell, one causing injuries to others receives the benefit of lower medical damages if the victim had health insurance and, as an added bonus, does not have to reimburse the victim of procuring such insurance.

Sadly, Howell is a win-win for those causing injuries to others in California.

We, at Heiting & Irwin specialize in personal injury cases and are on the cutting edge of personal injury law in California.  While this decision is upsetting, we are undeterred in making sure our clients are fully compensated for their injuries.

DEMAND EQUAL PROTECTION

December 22, 2010

By: Dennis R. Stout

Equal protection is a clever and timely catch phrase and legal issue in these times of gay rights and mandatory health care. The issue also arises in the purchase and maintenance of UM/UIM (uninsured and underinsured) motorist coverage in the State of California.

 Following up on the prior blog re: UM/UIM coverage, automobile liability insurance or proof of financial responsibility is required on any vehicle operated in the State of California. Minimum requirements are $15,000.00 for injury/death to one person; $30,000.00 for injury/death to more than one person; and $5,000.00 for damage to property. By purchasing the minimum coverage or any greater insurance coverage limits, the driver/owner is protecting the interest of others, should they sustained injury or damage. But what about equally protecting yourself?

Uninsured motorist/underinsured coverage is not mandated. If you are injured in an automobile accident involving an uninsured or underinsured driver, are you protected? You must have the proper coverage and the proper limits of coverage to equally protect yourself.

To purchase automobile liability insurance coverage only, a waiver is required of UM/UIM coverage. If you carry greater liability coverage than the minimum limits requirements in California (15/30/5) you definitely need UM/UIM coverage. With liability limits in larger amounts, to carry UM/UIM coverage in less than limits of $30,000.00 per person/ $60,000.00 per event, another waiver is required.

To make a long and complicated story short, drivers of vehicles in the State of California need to protect themselves equally by acquiring UM/UIM coverage in limits equal to the liability coverage limits they purchase to protect others. Waivers can be complicated in insurance purchases but, insurance claims, litigation for personal injuries and damages, and not having the proper insurance coverage and limits of coverage can be an even more complicated process.

Protect yourself with equal coverage and limits that you protect others! Check your automobile insurance policy(s) with your agent. All automobile liability issues, insurance claims, and other injury matters can be handled by competent legal counsel. Heiting & Irwin in Riverside, CA can and will handle all your insurance and injury claims to conclusion. Contact us at any time you are in need of assistance.

The Real Losers Under MICRA

August 19, 2010

By Sara B. Morgan

California enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, known as MICRA, in 1975 to combat concerns over the availability and rising price of medical malpractice insurance. This Act established a limitation, or cap, of $250,000 on the amount a person could recover for any pain, suffering, distress, anguish, and loss of quality of life in a medical malpractice case.

The theory was that MICRA would decrease the number of medical malpractice claims, as well as the costs of resolving those claims. It was further speculated that these savings would “trickle down” to consumers, resulting in lower or stabilized insurance coverage premiums and increased availability of medical services.

No one argues that the publicized goal of medical malpractice caps was to save money, but the real question is, to save money for whom? Under MICRA’s system, the real winners are health care professionals – negligent health care professionals – whose damages are limited to just $250,000 regardless of the type of harm they cause their patients.

MICRA’s impact on Californians injured as a result of negligent health care professionals is widespread. In fact, MICRA caps operate on half of all plaintiffs verdicts in California to reduce the award a jury determines necessary to compensate those plaintiffs for their losses. The end result was a reduction in costs – negligent health care professionals benefitted from a 30% reduction in liability. What is lacking is any evidence showing that patients benefitted from a similar reduction in medical malpractice.

Even more disturbing, research has proven that the jury awards most likely to be capped under MICRA are those cases which resulted in death, in severe non-fatal injuries, and injuries to children younger than 1 year.

This is our justice system’s ultimate betrayal of those Californians most severely injured by negligent health care professionals. It is the responsibility of health care professionals to be accountable for their negligent actions, just as any individual, under our laws, is held accountable. For patients who have died or been severely injured, or who are very young, there is no voice and hence, no justice. Only the California voters can speak on their behalf, by reforming the medical malpractice caps in a manner that protects the voiceless and not the negligent.