Articles Tagged with non-economic damages

Published on:

Summary: A law was passed in California in 1975 (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, also known as “MICRA”) which, among other things, limited the amount of money awarded for non-economic damages (pain, suffering, emotional distress, etc.) to $250,000 in medical malpractice cases. There was no clause included which adjusted the amount for inflation which means, at this point, that $250,000 is worth about $60,000 now.

I initially addressed this issue in Post #7 published in July of 2012 entitled “Here’s Why the California Cap on Non-economic Damages Is Archaic.” I discussed it again in October of 2012 in Post #14 entitled “Until the California Supreme Court Takes a Gander, the California Cap on Non-economic Damages Will Stay Firmly in Place.” Finally, I dealt with it in July of 2013 in Post #28 which was an addendum to Posts 7 and 14.  I would ask that you read those for background on the reasoning behind this cap and why the law is so wrong.

Continue reading

Published on:

Summary: A law was passed in California in 1975 (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, also known as “MICRA”) which, among other things, limited the amount of money awarded for non-economic damages (pain, suffering, emotional distress, etc.) to $250,000 in medical malpractice cases. There was no clause included which adjusted the amount for inflation which means, at this point, that $250,000 is worth about $60,000 now.

I initially addressed this issue in Post #7 published in July of 2012 entitled “Here’s Why the California Cap on Non-economic Damages Is Archaic.” I addressed it again in October of 2012 in Post #14 entitled “Until the California Supreme Court Takes a Gander, the California Cap on Non-economic Damages Will Stay Firmly in Place.” I would ask that you read those for background on the reasoning behind this cap and why the law is so wrong.

I am bringing this up simply because it is now July of 2018 and you may be wondering if something has happened since. Well, nothing helpful.

Published on:

Written by :  Patricia I. James**

In Post #7, I wrote about the cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages in California.  Basically, I said that it was an unfair cap that had not been revised since it was established in 1975.

In Post #14, I wrote that, if the Gavello case went to the California Supreme Court, it might find that the cap was unconstitutional.  I did not give that much hope but it was a thought.