California Medical Malpractice Attorneys
| About Us The Firm Practice Areas Case Results Free Evaluation Mission Statement Contact Us Affiliations/Awards Testimonials How to Hire a Lawyer Links Disclaimer |
I receive over 250 requests to evaluate potential medical
malpractice claims a year. Most of these requests appear
to have valid claims against a healthcare provider for
errors in providing medical services or failure to provide
services. In most situations, in order to properly evaluate
a potential claim, records need to be obtained and the
records need to be reviewed by a medical expert. The cost
of time and money to obtain records and have them reviewed
generally is between $1,500 and $2,500. About one in fifty
of these potential claims appear to be "economically viable".
It is therefore essential that I pick through the requests
and evaluate only those that have a high probability of
being "economically viable" unless the potential client
pays for the evaluation. To properly evaluate all apparently
valid claims that I receive, I would be spending about
$500,000 a year ($2,000 X 250). From years of experience
I know that I will only find about five cases out of 250
that will be "economically viable". "Economically viable"
means that the chance of winning and the amount of the
potential award are high enough to offset the enormous
costs of time and money to pursue the case.
The cases that are potentially "economically viable" are
those cases that are the most outrageous, include clear
liability on the part of the healthcare provider and who’s
"economic damages" are in excess of a million dollars.
The reason that the threshold for "economically viable"
is so high is due to the roadblocks to medical malpractice
lawsuits created by the healthcare industry and its insurance
companies, enacted by the California legislature in 1975
to keep YOU from successfully pursuing just and proper
claims against healthcare professionals. Medical malpractice
cases are the ONLY type of cases in California where the
injured plaintiff is restricted from recovering all of
their damages. Who benefits from this law? Who is prejudiced
by this law? Who do you think was behind getting the California
legislature to pass laws that DO NOT hold healthcare providers
liable for their errors in the same way as every other
professional in California?
What is Medical Malpractice?
Medical malpractice or medical negligence occurs when
a doctor or other healthcare provider breaches his or
her duty to a patient to perform treatment in accordance
with the "standard of care". The "standard of care" in
California requires that a healthcare provider exercise
adequately the skill, knowledge and care ordinarily possessed
and exercised by other members of the profession acting
under similar conditions and circumstances.
What can I recover in a Medical Malpractice case?
As in any other personal injury case, the damages which
can be recovered in a medical malpractice case fall into
two classifications: "special damages" and "general damages".
"Special damages, or "economic", damages, are the "cost"
of medical care, the "cost" of special medical devices,
"costs" the plaintiff will incur in on order to continue
to function, the loss of future earnings, and other "out
of pocket" expenses/losses. "General Damages" or "non-economic"
damages, are the compensation to the plaintiff for the
pain, suffering, disfigurement, embarrassment, loss of
enjoyment of life, and so on.
Legislative Limit on "Non-Economic/General" Damages
In 1975, the California Legislature limited the plaintiff’s
ability to recover "non-economic" damages to $250,000.
No matter how much pain the plaintiff has/will suffer,
no matter how their future life has been altered, no matter
the disfigurement, no matter that they will never walk
again, hold their child, or enjoy the normal functions
and joys of life, the limit on "non-economic damages"
is $250,000. That limit has not changed since 1975.
Proving Medical Malpractice
It is expensive to gather and present evidence needed
to prove that a provider had fallen below the ‘standard
of care’. Plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases need
to hire expert witnesses to testify on the issues of:
(1) the "standard of care"; (2) the provider’s breach
of that standard; (3) the causal relationship between
the negligence and the injuries caused; and (4) the cost
of the future care for the injuries caused; and (5) any
loss of earnings over the lifetime of the plaintiff. Most
plaintiffs cannot afford the cost of hiring these experts
($50,000 - $100,000+), especially at a time when they
are dealing with the changes in their life caused by the
malpractice. Plaintiffs are left to relying on attorneys
to advance these litigation costs in the hope that the
recoveries in their cases will repay those costs. The
only part of the recovery by the plaintiff that can repay
the costs without compromising that plaintiff’s future
medical care, nursing care, equipment needs, or lost income
is the "non-economic damages" portion of the recovery
which has been limited by California law.
The Economics of a Medical Malpractice Case
When considering the costs of pursuing a medical malpractice
case ($50,000 to $100,000+ in costs) plus attorney’s fees
and the projected outcome of a jury award, it becomes
apparent that the only "economically viable" medical malpractice
cases are those with very large "economic damages".
What about a Death caused by Medical Malpractice?
In cases involving a death, the same basic analysis applies
as any other personal injury case, except for the non-economic
damages and the attorneys’ fees. Non-economic damages
remember are limited to $250,000. In addition to non-economic
damages the hires are entitled to recover the incurred
medical and funeral expenses as well as loss of income
that they would have otherwise received but for the death.
This situation results in most death cases of a relative
that was not supporting someone, being not "economically
viable", even though a life has been wrongfully taken.
Why are Plaintiffs’ Law Firms reluctant to take
Medical Malpractice Cases?
In the vast majority of cases the profit margin is to
low or non-existent. It is much more expensive to pursue
medical malpractice claims than it is most every other
type of personal injury claim with the exception of products
liability claims against automobile manufacturers and
drug manufacturers. The amount of work required by the
plaintiffs’ law firms in a medical malpractice case is
as high as in auto and drug manufacturer cases, however,
in California, the attorneys fees have been lowered by
the California legislature to substantially less than
what plaintiffs’ firms earn on auto and drug cases. The
Plaintiffs’ law firms don’t want to work on and invest
their money in, cases that are substantially more difficult,
are substantially more risky and pay substantially less.
Generally, juries are much more likely to hold an automobile
or drug manufacturer accountable for their wrongdoing
than they are the local doctor or healthcare provider.
What are my options?
If I believed your claim was "economically viable", meaning
it includes clear liability and/or outrageous conduct
on the part of the healthcare provider and "economic damages"
are in excess of a million dollars (medical expenses and
lost income), I would have undertaken an evaluation of
your claim at my expense and you would not have received
this letter. However, I do not believe that the claim
that you presented to me is "economically viable" for
my firm to take on.
I suggest that you shop with other law firms. See if another
attorney evaluates your claim differently than I do. Your
other option is to pay a law firm to fully evaluate your
claim. Some law firm will fully evaluate medical malpractice
claims for a fee, generally $1,000 to $5,000 depending
upon the complexity of the facts. We do not evaluate claims
for a fee. If I thought it was a good idea for you to
spend your money on an evaluation, I would have spent
mine. If you want a full evaluation for piece of mind,
then it may be worth the cost to you to pay a law firm
to fully evaluate your claim.
Mr. Bisnar, I think you have misjudged my claim.
If you believe that I have misjudged your claim, please
bring to my attention any facts or circumstances that
I may have not properly considered.
Please Keep In Mind
Please keep in mind, in California, for medical malpractice
claims in most every situation (other than minors), failure
to file a lawsuit within one year of the injury results
in the loss of all ability to pursue legal rights through
the court system. Further, please keep in mind, until
I formally accept a case (a written retainer agreement
is signed), I am not your attorney nor am I representing
you. The fact that we may be corresponding about possible
representation does not make me your attorney.











