Warning: Use of undefined constant ‘fbimage’ - assumed '‘fbimage’' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/customer/www/mitchelllawsf.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/mitchellinjury/header.php on line 32

Warning: Use of undefined constant ” - assumed '”' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/customer/www/mitchelllawsf.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/mitchellinjury/header.php on line 32
Warning: Use of undefined constant ‘fbimage’ - assumed '‘fbimage’' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/customer/www/mitchelllawsf.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/mitchellinjury/header.php on line 35
” / > CA Voters Refuse to Increase Med Malpractice Cap
Mitchell Leeds, LLP

Call today for a
Free Consultation


Toll Free: 877-637-1045

Recognized California
Medical Malpractice Lawyer

$68 MillionLargest Jury Verdict in Fresno County history for failure to comply with hospital standards for patient safety, leaving elderly man in permanent coma. Jury also awarded punitive damages.
$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
$5.5 MillionSettlement for failure to diagnose and treat kernicterus resulting in severe brain damage of child

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!

    California Voters Refuse to Increase Medical Malpractice Cap

    On November 4, 2014, Californians awesomely casted their votes against Proposition 46, a proposal that would have increased a cap on medical malpractice rewards and demanded standard drug and alcohol testing for hospital physicians. The high-spending conflict over Proposition 46 set two special-interest organizations in the state against each other: physicians and attorneys.

    Attorneys in the state had long tried to increase California’s $250,000 malpractice cap established by the state’s 1975 Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act. The cap is close to the low point amid the thirty-five states that have some maximum for such compensation. Proposition 46 backers claimed the present amount was obsolete, causing it to be difficult to take cases to court. The measure would have increased the cap to $1.1 million and permitted for inflation modifications.

    The state’s medical and hospital associations contested the measure and disapproved of putting malpractice alterations together with the physician drug-testing necessity. Challengers stated the campaign for the proposal was ambiguous. In addition, the proposal consistent of a third challenger: demanding medical professionals to verify patients’ prescription-drug histories against a state database.

    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