(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)
Question: Are medical malpractice plaintiffs eligible to recover prejudgment interest on their jury award when their statutory offer to settle has been rejected?
F. Plaintiff Received a More Favorable Verdict as Compared to the 998 Offer:
Whether the § 998 offerer obtained a more favorable judgment is ascertained by a simple comparison between the dollar amount of the offer and the dollar amount of the total judgment. Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 662, fn. 13]
Plaintiff is entitled to 10% interest on the judgment, calculated from the date of his or her first § 998 offer that was exceeded by the judgment. Such interest continues to accrue until the judgment is satisfied. Civil Code § 3291; see Steinfeld v. Foote-Goldman Proctologic Med. Group, Inc. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1550-1551, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 371, 375 [interest accrues during pendency of appeal].
Here, the net dollar of the judgment against Dr. Kenneth B. is $3, 723, 000, which is to be compared with the Section 998 offer of $400, 000 to determine if there was a more favorable verdict. Even if the judgment is reduced to the MICRA cap of $250, 000, that amount plus the economic damages of $188, 800 totals $448, 800, still exceeds the section 998 offer of $400, 000.
Moreover, when a defendant rejects plaintiff's §998 offer - pre and post offer costs are added to the verdict to determine if there was a more favorable verdict. In this case there are over $50, 000 in costs.
Source: www.sacramentomedicalmalpracticelawyerblog.com
Overtime Pay for Information Technology Workers
Information technology workers are notoriously overworked. They put in long hours, field endless emergency calls in and out of regular hours, get no credit when things go well and take the blame when anything goes wrong. Moderns cities like Atlanta have more than their share of IT workers.
But because of an often- misunderstood FLSA computer worker exemption form overtime pay, IT workers are often shut out of overtime that they are actually entitled to. This exemption has become the subject of discussion boards among the computer literate, and IT workers have been suing their companies, and winning, for denied overtime.
Employers often misinterpret a very narrow FLSA overtime exemption that applies to some computer workers, specifically exempting from overtime pay employees who are involved in the application of systems analysis techniques, or who develop or design software or operating systems, or perform related functions.
Source: www.overtimelawyerblog.com
Wrongful Death Of Sacramento Man Due To Medical Negligence, Part 2 of 3
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)
II MEDICAL OPINION TESTIMONY MUST BE TO A REASONABLE MEDICAL PROBABILITY
An expert witness - including a medical doctor - must testify on issues of the standard of care, causation and damages, in the field of his expertise, to a reasonable medical probability. Clearly, “[a]bsolute proof or mathematical demonstration is not required.” (Foremost Dairies v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 237 Cal. App.2d 560, 568-569, citing Santa v. Industrial Ace. Com. (1917) 175 Cal. 235, 237.) However, an expert must testify to a reasonable medical probability as opposed to offering mere guess work, speculation, conjecture or bare possibilities.
Conversely, if the expert cannot testify as to a reasonable medical probability as to one of the elements of medical negligence - standard of care, causation, or damage - such testimony cannot be admitted. This fundamental principle that an expert must testify to a reasonable medical probability was stated in Rowley v. Bunnell (1968) 257 Cal. App.2d 324, where establishing the time of death of two testators was at issue:
“Medical witnesses need not testify positively to support a finding of proximate cause. Their opinion of-the probabilities is sufficient for that purpose.” (Emphasis added.) (Rowley, supra, 257 Cal.App.2d at p. 341.) See also Tannyhill v. Pacific Motor Transportation Company (1964) 22 Cal. App.2d 511, 521, citing to Travelers Insurance Company v. Industrial Ace. Corn. 22 Cal.2d 685. (See Robertson v. Leigh (1957) 153 Cal. App.2d 730.)
Source: www.sacramentomedicalmalpracticelawyerblog.com
How Do You Define "Work Time" Anyway?
In order to know if the time you spend at work might be classified as overtime by the FLSA, you have to know how work time itself is defined. The FLSA language defining what constitutes work itself is vague enough, though, that each situation probably has to be figured out on a case-by-case basis.
For instance, in the 2005 US Supreme Court case of IBP Inc v Alvarez, the Court ruled that the time that employees spend walking to their production area after putting on required work gear is compensable. The time spent waiting to take the work gear off also is compensable. However, the time spent waiting to put the first piece of gear on before starting work is not compensable.
But all of this can be changed under a union or employee contract, if you’re under one, so, as always, make sure you read your employment contract carefully under any and all circumstances.
Source: www.overtimelawyerblog.com
Court Addresses Medical Malpractice Issues For Sacramento Family, Part 1 of 3
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I INTRODUCTION
This is a wrongful death action involving the death of Trevor Smith, who was a forty-one-year-old father and husband from Sacramento. He died of cardiac arrest following a lengthy period of multi-organ failure. Plaintiffs assert Defendants failed to properly diagnose and treat his condition.
Certain of defendants' expert witnesses in the pending case may testify to opinions on causation and the standard of care concerning the treatment. Some of the expert testimony may be couched in terms of “medical possibilities” rather than “medical probabilities.” California Evidence Code section 350 limits admissibility of evidence to “relevant evidence.” Relevant evidence is evidence “having some tendency in reason to prove or to disprove any disputed fact of consequence in the action”, that is, evidence that is probative of some disputed issue in the case. See Evidence Code section 210. Thus, evidence is irrelevant if it has a tendency to prove or disprove a disputed fact of consequence only by reason of drawing speculative or conjectural inferences from such evidence. On the basis of this definition, defendants' expert testimony may be irrelevant if it does not establish causation or the standard of care to a reasonable medical probability.
Section 352 of the Evidence Code permits the Court to exclude probative evidence if it is otherwise time-consuming, prejudicial, confusing or misleading. We are interested in medical probabilities, not possibilities, conjecture and/or speculation.
Source: www.sacramentomedicalmalpracticelawyerblog.com
Sacramento-area Family Files Medical Malpractice Action, Part 9 of 9
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)
DAMAGES
As to Alexandra, the damage to his body speaks for itself. Plaintiffs presented substantial and credible evidence on this issue with the testimony of Dr. Peter W., Dr. Nathaniel T., Dr. Paul U., and Dr. Marilyn S.. All testified to the nature and extent of the severe and permanent injuries suffered by Alexandra, and Dr. W. testified to those things that Alexandra will need in the future by way of the life care plan.
Plaintiffs additionally presented substantial and credible evidence with Dr. David R. and Mr. Anastos concerning the nature and extent of Alexandra's disability as it related to his ability to work and the economic impact of that disability.
The jury obviously carefully considered the plaintiffs' expert witness testimony and the defense expert witness testimony and reached a compromise on the economic damages suffered by Alexandra. The award was reasonable and in line with the substantial and credible evidence produced by plaintiffs.
As to general damages, it was the jury's judgment that Mrs. Brown suffered $1, 000, 000.00 in general damages being witness to the injuries suffered by her child at birth and dealing with those injuries and their sequela.
Source: www.sacramentomedicalmalpracticelawyerblog.com
Why Aren't You Using Environmentally Friendly Goods and Services?
When was the last time you used environmentally goods and services? If it has been awhile or if you have never used them, it is your responsibility to maintain the ecological balance and care of Mother Nature. In order to make sure that these products are actually good for the ...
Source: www.goarticles.com
Want to Start Combating Climate Change?
Let's face it. Combating the changes taking place in the climate has become a matter of survival. Most of the changes that are happening in the climate pose a serious threat to every living thing on earth: humans, plants, animals, etc. It is widely believed that if the changes taking ...
Source: www.goarticles.com
Is Tap Water Safe For Bathing and Showering? Want to Know?
When was the last time you thought about this? If the answer is never or it has been awhile, you may be endangering yourself and, most importantly, your family. So you need to inform yourself on the topic. If you're wondering is tap water safe for bathing and showering, you're ...
Source: www.goarticles.com
Labels:
0 comments:
Post a Comment