New Ballot Campaign Against Medical Malpractice Caps Kicks Off
The event marked the start of what could be a months-long, multimillion-dollar effort to gather more than 623,000 valid signatures to put the measure before voters in November 2020.
December 16, 2019 at 06:59 PM
3 minute read
Supporters of a proposed ballot initiative to lift, and in some cases eliminate, California's $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases, kicked off their signature-gathering campaign in Sacramento on Monday.
The event marked the start of what could be a five-month-long, multimillion-dollar marathon to gather more than 623,000 valid signatures to put the measure before voters in November 2020.
"We're going to change things because it's the right thing to do," said plaintiffs lawyer Nicholas Rowley, a partner at Carpenter Zuckerman & Rowley who is spearheading the campaign with Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog.
The campaign kickoff was held at Frank Fat's, a Sacramento restaurant that was the scene of the so-called napkin deal, a 1987 agreement hashed out among legislative leaders and lobbyists representing lawyers, doctors and the tobacco industry. Spelled out on one of the restaurant's cloth napkins, the deal, among other things, gave plaintiffs lawyers access to higher contingency fees while keeping intact the medical malpractice caps enacted in 1975.
Families of malpractice victims and their political supporters, including former U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer and Christine Pelosi, chair of the California Democratic Party's women's caucus, railed against the agreement and the cap itself. Gov. Jerry Brown signed the legislation creating the cap during his first year as governor and served as a blockade to any attempt to amend it during his administration's final eight years.
The initiative would tie the noneconomic damages cap to inflation, raising it to $1.2 million in today's dollars and adjusting it annually. Judges and juries would be allowed to award damages above the cap in cases involving "catastrophic" injuries and death. And the measure would bar evidence of collateral sources of victim support, such as insurance policies, and end mandatory periodic payments to plaintiffs.
Initiative backers said they had a scheduled meeting with Anthony Williams, Gov. Gavin Newsom's legislative secretary, Monday afternoon. The governor has not taken a public position on the measure. Rowley said he met with Newsom at a Southern California hotel lounge shortly before he launched his 2018 gubernatorial campaign.
"Gavin Newsom looked me in the eye and said, 'That law is wrong and it's got to change,'" Rowley said Monday. "Hopefully he'll stand up and say that to everybody else."
The governor's press office did not return a message seeking comment on the proposed initiative and Rowley's account of talking with Newsom.
Absent from Monday's event were leaders of the Consumer Attorneys of California, which lobbies for the plaintiffs bar in Sacramento. Organization executives have not taken a position on the initiative and have said previously that the malpractice law should be "corrected" in the Legislature, which returns to session next month.
Rowley said Monday that any legislation solution would have to go beyond simply raising the cap on damages.
A spokesman for Californians Allied for Patient Protection, an organization backed by health care and insurance interests that support of the malpractice cap law, did not return a message left Monday.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInsurers Dodge Sherwin-Williams' Claim for $102M Lead Paint Abatement Payment, State High Court Rules
What Does Ohio Supreme Court's Opioid Decision Mean for Public Nuisance Claims?
6 minute readMeet the Pacific Northwest Judges Who Rejected the Kroger-Albertsons Supermarket Merger
4 minute readJudge's Civil Contempt Order for Zoom Recording Violation Must Include 'The Keys to the Cell,' State Appellate Court Says
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1City Bar Presents Thomas E. Dewey Awards to Outstanding NYC Prosecutors
- 2NC Solicitor General Park Withdraws His 4th Circuit Nomination
- 3Trump-Appointed Judge Presides Over NASCAR Antitrust Dispute Under Case Reassignment
- 4CFPB Orders Big Banks to Limit Overdraft Fees to $5. But Will Its Edict Stick?
- 5FIFA Faces Legal Challenge Over Winning Saudi World Cup Bid
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250