Mitchell Law Firm

Call today for a
Free Consultation

415-769-3400

Toll Free: 877-637-1045

CALIFORNIA'S TOP
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAWYER

$5.5 MillionSettlement for failure to diagnose and treat kernicterus resulting in severe brain damage of child
$5.5 MillionSettlement for failure to diagnose acute blood loss after cancer surgery resulting in brain damage to physician
$7 MillionPlus Settlement: Negligent performance of intubation post-operatively, resulting in severe brain damage to minor child.
$10.8 MillionConfidential settlement for an adult who suffered catastrophic injury from a stroke
$22 MillionRobyn Frankel vs. Palo Alto Medical Foundation GroupJury verdict for paralysis caused to patient after an unnecessary procedure.
$4.25 MillionSettlement for failure to quickly respond to a minor plaintiff’s hyperthermia after surgery resulting in catastrophic injuries including brain damage
$4 MillionSettlement for failure to diagnose fetal distress resulting in minor plaintiff suffering from severe static encephalopathy

Settle for More.

Free Consultations. You Don't Pay Unless We Win.

Contact Us Today for YourFree Consultation

Fill out the form below and we'll be in touch within 24 hours!

  • captcha

California Supporters Aim to Increase California Cap on Medical Malpractice Rewards

On March 24, 2014, California consumer supports stated they had amassed enough names to put an initiative on the November ballot that would increase a decades-old state cap on medical malpractice rewards to $1.1 million. The planned initiative, supported by trial attorneys and the Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog, would increase over four times the amount of money a patient could be reward for pain and suffering in a malpractice case—then limited at $250,000. Consumer Watchdog leader Jamie Court stated he would hang on until the day’s end on March 24 to present the final names, stopping to observe if a legislative negotiation that disintegrated a week ago would be restarted prior to an early evening cut-off date to present the names for an election initiative.

The Court stated besides increasing the cap on pain and suffering rewards, the initiative would demand arbitrary drug testing of physicians after increasing worry about over-prescription of addictive pain drugs, including among physicians. Patients’ representatives had attempted for no less than twenty years to convince the state to increase the restriction on pain and suffering rewards, which was established in the 1970s and was not systematized to inflation. Resistance from the California Medical Association and other physicians’ representative had made such modification hard to ratify.

Wishing to evade an expensive and hostile conflict between physicians and attorneys over the election initiative, state senate Democratic leader Darrell Steinberg in February 2014 presented a bill stating it was the legislature’s objective to draw both sides together and attempt to cause cooperation. A week ago, sources near the negotiations maintained, representatives of physicians and attorneys were near choosing a deal suggested by Steinberg to increase the restriction according to the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) to $500,000. The meeting disintegrated on March 21, the sources stated, resulting in a decision by Consumer Watchdog and Consumer Attorneys of California, the state trial attorneys association, to file the names by day’s end on March 24 if the legislature does not proceed.



lorum ipsumlorum ipsum Say

In over 25 years of practice on the defense side of malpractice cases, Jeff Mitchell is the attorney I fear most. He takes very good cases. Jeff has the medicine and the applicable literature down cold. He is without a doubt the best cross-examiner I have ever seen. I have paid his clients a lot of money over the years.
- John M.

Our Locations

Google Analytics Alternative