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 Supreme Court to Listen to Challenge on Medical Malpractice Rewards

Following Proposition 46’s November 2014 loss, which requested, among other things, to raise the cap of nonfinancial compensation in medical malpractice cases, it appeared as if California’s malpractice cap would stay at $250,000 for the expected future. However, the California Supreme Court had consented to listen to a case disputing the legality of the state’s cap on pain and suffering rewards in medical malpractice cases.

The case, Hughes v. Pham, concerned a patient who became a paraplegic following a neurosurgeon supposedly delaying treatment after an off-road vehicle accident. The jury decided the doctor was guilty and rewarded the plaintiff $2.75 million in nonfinancial compensation. In spite of this, that reward was decreased to $250,000 following California’s 1975 Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act. A California appeals court maintained that judgment, and the plaintiffs petitioned to the state’s Supreme Court. The plaintiffs claimed that cap breached the assurance of equal protection under the Constitution. They contended that the law randomly and unreasonably distinguishes the most brutally injured victims or medical malpractice for adverse treatment. The proletariat organization, Consumer Watchdog, filed an amicus brief, requesting the California Supreme Court to listen to the challenge to the thirty-nine-year-old law.



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