MICRA

How Does MICRA Affect a Medical Malpractice Case?

MICRA, or the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, was signed into law by California governor Jerry Brown during his first governorship in 1975 with the intent to reduce medical malpractice insurance premiums. In the mid-1970s, the cost of malpractice insurance was so high, it was seen as a threat to the quality of the state’s healthcare. Many thought these high insurance rates would limit the availability of medical providers or cause physicians to go without insurance, leaving injured patients with uncollectible judgments in the event of actual negligence.

Whether MICRA is good public policy is up for debate. Most of MICRA’s provisions have never been amended and plaintiffs’ lawyers – including those at HM – see MICRA as extremely unfair to malpractice litigants, depriving them of the chance to receive proper compensation for their complex cases.

There are a number of provisions to MICRA, though the main ones are covered below:

What Are the Limits on the Amount of Recoverable General Damages?

In most tort lawsuits, the plaintiff can assert general damages for “non-economic damages” such as their pain, suffering, inconvenience, and emotional distress. These are separate from special or “economic” damages that include concrete losses such as out-of-pocket medical expenses, future care costs, loss of earnings, and other monetary damages the injured has suffered.

In medical malpractice cases, a plaintiff can still collect for general damages.

What Is MICRA’s Cap On General Damages?

However, as codified in Civil Code section 3333.2, MICRA only allows an injured person to recover a maximum of $250,000.00 in general damages. This is arguably MICRA’s most infamous detail because it was written in 1975 and has not been adjusted for inflation since. If it were, the $250,000 cap from 1975 dollars would now be over $1,100,000 today.

Since MICRA’s passage in 1975, the consumer price index has increased 335%. The cap on non-economic damages has not changed, while the cost of everything else continues to rise.

What Is the Significance of MICRA vs. Other Lawsuits?

There are no caps for general damage compensation in other lawsuits, such as in auto accident lawsuits. For example, if a high school student dies in an accident by a drunk driver, many might argue the family deserves significant compensation for such a loss. If a jury awards the plaintiffs $5,000,000 in general damages (assuming there are no special damages), that verdict could stand and become a judgment for $5,000,000.

However, if that same high school student passes away as a result of medical malpractice, even if the jury comes back with a verdict for $5,000,000 (once again, all general damages and no specials), the court must follow the law and will reduce that verdict to only $250,000 when it issues a judgment.

Again, special damages are separate and distinct. Because they are unaffected by the damages cap, they are key to getting awards in medical malpractice cases over $250,000. This is why it is absolutely critical that medical malpractice victims document all of their out of pocket expenses. It is also critical that they keep thorough evidence showing what loss of earnings they may suffer on account of their injuries. This is usually done with W-2s if the plaintiff has a documented earnings history.

Statute of Limitations: Is There a Requirement to Give Notice Before Suing a Medical Provider?

Under MICRA, a plaintiff in a malpractice case only has one year from the date they discover their injury was caused by negligence to sue a medical provider. The plaintiff also typically has three years from the date of the injury to bring their suit, whether they recognize the injury is from malpractice or not.

There are few exceptions that affect the statute of limitations. For instance, with misread mammograms, the patient is often considered “injured” when she is actually diagnosed with breast cancer – even though the mistake was made years prior. With details like these, it’s important for an attorney to accurately determine how long you have to pursue a claim. Moreover, anyone who seriously suspects they were a victim of malpractice should seek out an attorney as early as possible.

MICRA also requires that the defendant medical provider be given a 90 day notice of an impending lawsuit before the case is filed, as codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 364. Failure to do so will not stop the case from moving forward, but is something that attorneys are supposed to do. If the statute of limitations would run within that 90 day notice period, sending the notice will extend the medical malpractice statute by 90 days.

Are There Any Limits on Contingent Attorney’s Fees?

Many tort cases are prosecuted by the plaintiff’s attorneys on a contingent fee basis, meaning that the attorney is only paid when the client receives compensation. MICRA puts limits on the maximum amount attorneys can charge in medical malpractice cases. These limits are based on a sliding scale that gradually reduces the attorney’s percentage fee as the recovered sum grows. This is essentially an attempt to counterbalance the effects of the general damages cap by ensuring that the plaintiff’s whole settlement or judgment is not taken by fees.

Under Business and Professions Code section 6146, the maximum amounts an attorney can charge on a contingency in a medical malpractice case are:

(1) Forty percent of the first fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) recovered
(2) Thirty-three and one-third percent of the next fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) recovered
(3) Twenty-five percent of the next five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) recovered
(4) Fifteen percent of any amount on which the recovery exceeds six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000)
Further, “recovered” here is defined as “the net sum recovered after deducting any disbursements or costs incurred in connection with prosecution or settlement of the claim.” This means that in medical malpractice cases, the attorney’s fees are taken out after case costs are deducted, not from the gross settlement. This is different from auto accident cases, for example, where attorney’s fees are commonly taken off the top before deducting costs.

While this part of MICRA is rather friendly for injured plaintiffs, there is still a damages cap to begin with.

MICRA is a complex law that complicates the vast majority of medical malpractice claims. Contact a medical malpractice lawyer at Hodes Milman for help with your case.

Collateral Sources and Preclusion of Subrogation

In personal injury cases, if an insurance company pays money to an injured plaintiff’s healthcare providers, evidence of these payments is not allowed at trial under something called the collateral source rule. Yet these insurance companies can still assert liens to recover the amounts they paid. They are able to do this under subrogation clauses that are often written into contracts between the insured plaintiff and their insurance company.

MICRA prevents most insurance carriers from asserting liens in medical malpractice cases. There are major exceptions, most notably for payments from federal government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid (which is administered through the California DHCS as MediCal). Overall, insurance companies cannot try to collect money out of medical malpractice recoveries under Civil Code section 3333.1. This is good news for the plaintiff.

The flip-side, however, is that the defense may introduce evidence of insurance benefits at the time of trial to reduce the plaintiff’s damages. For instance, if a plaintiff claims past medical expenses in his case, the defense can show how much of those expenses were paid by insurance and demand an offset against the claimed damages.

This is all aimed at reducing the liability of the defendant healthcare provider. The plaintiff can still recover his out-of-pocket expenses, but not the amounts paid by insurance. The defendant will argue that those insurance payments are not part of the plaintiff’s “loss” since he did not expend his own money there. In recent years, healthcare providers have also attempted to apply this to future medical expenses.

This part of MICRA is confusing and rather difficult to understand. As with the other sections, there are nuances here too that are omitted for brevity, but even attorneys can struggle with some of the provisions in MICRA’s section 3333.1.

Contact a Lawyer at Hodes Milman for Assistance With Micra Issues

MICRA is a multi-layered law that complicates the vast majority of medical malpractice claims. It places outdated restrictions on the amount and nature of damages that an injured patient can recover in a medical malpractice lawsuit.

When dealing with a case that may be subject to MICRA, the assistance of an experienced medical malpractice attorney is needed. At Hodes Milman our attorneys have mastered the ins and outs of medical malpractice litigation, especially those subject to MICRA provisions. We have the experience and resources needed to maximize your claim under the relevant laws.

Contact us today at (949) 640-8222 to schedule a free, no-obligation consultation. Our lawyers are here to make sure you understand your rights under the law. We fight hard to obtain the proper remedy you are entitled to as an injured medical patient.

FAQs

Client Testimonials

Read what our former clients are saying about the quality of our legal services:

The Law Office of Hodes Milman represented us for a somewhat complicated medical malpractice lawsuit. My husband and I are extremely fortunate and grateful to have had Mr. Daniel Hodes as our attorney. His expertise and professionalism throughout the process quickly brought us peace of mind, especially during such a stressful time. Mr. Hodes was diligent with every detail pertaining to our case and we had the utmost confidence in his guidance.
– Melissa R.

My husband received bad medical care and as a result almost died. I was fortunate enough to be referred to Jeff Milman. Jeff was so easy to talk to and worked so hard to get us a settlement. He kept us informed every step of the way. It was so great to have someone who believed in us after what we went through.
-Cyndi F.

Dan Hodes treated me like a human being, not just another client. He showed me he cared by how hard he worked on my case.
-Dalia P.

Resourceful Links

Medical Malpractice
Cancer Misdiagnosis
Breast Cancer Misdiagnosis Lawsuits: What You Need to Know
Birth Injuries
Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy Lawyers
Elder Abuse