Q: My father was killed in an accident that was not his fault. As a result, I ended up with an inheritance. Will the inheritance count against me if I sue the wrongdoer who caused my father’s death?
A: No. At least not in a case in California. It’s not what you received as a
The California Supreme Court dealt the injured a serious blow in August when it handed down Howell v. Hamilton Meats and Provisions, Inc. It is certainly one of the most pro-insurance company cases ever.
Gary Simms and I collaborated on a couple of articles explaining how Howell will change the legal landscape in the years
Objectively measuring physical pain has been impossible. Doctors have relied on a patient’s self-report. And when asked to compensate accident victims for pain and su
ffering, so have juries.
But all that may soon change. Recently Stanford University researchers have used brain images and computer technology to assess pain. In this study, a computer
Last Thursday, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in Howell v. Hamilton Meats. The ruling favors those who cause injury to others (such as people who get into accidents while texting) over their victims. The Court decided that it is those who cause injuries, and not their victims, who will benefit from the health insurance that the victim has paid for.
I attended the oral argument before the Supreme Court back in May. I wrote about that here. Today, Gary Simms, who argued the case for Rebecca How
ell, provided me his perspective on the Court’s decision.
Q: Were you surprised by the 6-to-1 decision against the plaintiff?
A: Unfortunately, I wasn’t surprised by the result. The Court is deeply conservative (six Republican appointees) and predictably anti-plaintiff in most personal-injury cases, so I knew from the outset of being retained for the Supreme Court briefing that I would face a very uphill battle. I was working at the margins; in other words; three justices would never vote for my position, and I knew it. I expected to get Justice Pro Tem Klein’s vote, though, and she very clearly signaled it at oral argument. I hoped to get three other votes, but I knew it would be difficult.
Q: Were you surprised by the new Chief Justice’s vote with the majority after she had taken the opposite view in her Court of Appeal opinion in King v. Willmett very shortly before she was appointed to the Supreme Court?
A: Yes, but after the oral argument, I sensed that she would flip-flop, so I was only mildly surprised. I can only speculate why she reversed her position. But I think the most likely reason was that she knew her vote would not change the outcome, so she chose to join the majority to make it unanimous. (Because Justice Klein was sitting pro tem by designation, her dissent does not matter in that regard; all the permanent Justices joined in the majority opinion.) This allowed the Chief Justice to establish herself as being a collegial and open minded consensus-builder. That’s a very important quality for a Chief Justice. And perhaps Continue Reading Howell v. Hamilton Meats: Candid Interview With Appellate Attorney Gary Simms
When a wrongdoer causes injury, he must pay the victim’s hospital bills. If the victim happens to have insurance, the insurance company will often settle those bills before trial. Should the wrongdoer be required to pay the victim for the full amount of the hospital bills? Or only the amount the insurer paid to settle the bills? That was the
The wrinkle reducer, Botox is approved by the FDA for very narrow uses only. But Allergan, its manufacturer, has promoted it to doctors all over the country for other uses, including muscle spasms. A doctor’s use of a drug for a purpose not approved by the FDA is often referred to as an “off-label” use.
Is an accident victim entitled to be paid for lost earnings if, at the time of accident, she had no job? Yes, as long as the victim had the ability to earn when the accident happened, and the accident took that ability away. For example, the victim may have been a stay-at-home mom, but she
Many of the San Bruno residents evacuated on September 9th may be categorized as “survivors,” having escaped the Glenview fire without being burned. But even though they suffer no physical injuries, the gas explosion will leave dozens with emotional injuries that will persist for a long time to come.
Generally the law does not require a
Of course a wife is entitled to recover against the wrongdoer who caused the death of her loving husband. But what if the husband had long ago abandoned her? Without a loving relationship or continuous support, is the "forgotten widow" entitled to any compensation at all?
In most cases, yes, because the forgotten widow or
Some accidents result in permanent injuries that will require ongoing care for the rest of the victim’s life. The victim is entitled to be compensated for the cost of the future care now. That’s because once the lawsuit is resolved, he cannot return to the wrongdoer and ask for additional compensation. The cost of the victim’s future care is
