Articles Posted in California Personal Injury Law

Emotional Distress Claims in California

California law on emotional distress claims is based upon hundreds of years of jurisprudence including statutes and case law.  The rights of any particular individual to claim damages for psychiatric trauma from an intentional or negligent act depends upon many factors including whether the person suffered actual physical harm or was in the so-called “zone of danger” when a catastrophe happened.  California breaks down these rights in basically two legal causes of action as follows:

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims Under the Laws of the State of California

The Third Circuit Court of Appeal in California has recently issued a ruling in Corenbaum v. Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308, that, in my opinion as an attorney that represents injured victims in California, has simply added insult to injury to a terrible decision issued in prior CA Supreme Court case, Howell v. Hamilton Meats, Co.  As I discussed at length in a blog post last year (click here), the Howell decision basically held that persons claiming personal injury in California who had health insurance at the time of the incident could only introduce the amount paid by health insurance as evidence of the reasonable value of past medical expenses.  What that decision left open is whether or not a plaintiff should be limited to introducing evidence of health insurance paid amounts for purposes of arguing the value of future medical services or non-economic damages (pain and suffering).  These issues were addressed in the Corembaum case.

Background of Corenbaum Decision Regarding Evidence in Personal Injury Trials in California

The plaintiffs in Corenbaum were two passengers in a taxicab in Los Angeles when they were involved in a motor vehicle accident where the driver (who was under the influence of alcohol at the time) hit the cab and then fled the scene. They brought civil claims for damages against the at fault driver and took the case to a jury trial.   Prior to trial the plaintiff moved to exclude any evidence of health insurance payments for any of the medical costs incurred as a result of the traffic collision.  As was customary prior to the Howell decision, the defendant moved to hold a post-trial motion to reduce the amounts awarded to plaintiffs based upon actual amounts paid by insurance rather than the amounts billed by the health care provider.  The court granted both motions and allowed the plaintiff to introduce the actual amounts billed for all medical services provided to them as a result of the incident.  The jury awarded one plaintiff $1,834,602.00 and the other $1,392,141, in combined damages for past medical expenses, future medical expenses and pain and suffering.  The post trial motion to reduce was held and the award was knocked down to $1,537,985.00 and $1,108,362.00 respectively based upon the difference between what was billed by the health care providers and what was ultimately paid by health insurance for the past medical expenses.

Los Angeles is home to more than its fair share of drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities.  While most of these make good faith efforts at curbing drug and alcohol addicted patients, the Hollywood Reporter recently published a story about a wrongful death civil lawsuit filed by the parents of 22 year old Andrew Witkoff arising from his death while a patient at one such facility.  (See story here).  The facts allege that the facility represented itself as a “Class A” in house clinic with trained personnel but, in fact, the staff persons assigned to monitor Mr. Witkoff had little or no training in monitoring and supervising drug addicted patients and that lack of proper supervision led to Mr. Witkoff continuing with his oxycontin consumption and his eventual overdose while at the facility. The lawsuit raises three, principal claims as follows: (1) Negligence; (2) Dependent Adult Abuse; and (3) Fraud.  I thought it would be interesting to explore what will need to proven by the parents of the deceased patient to prevail on these claims and what potential recovery of money damages may be gained in these various causes of action.

What is “Negligence” As It Applies to The Administration of Drug Counseling and Rehabilitation?

California law defines “negligence” as a breach of a legal duty to provide ordinary and reasonable care which causes damage to another person.  If this results in a death, then the survivors or heirs (including parents, siblings, and children) may be entitled to recover damages for both financial support previously provided by the decedent as well as the “economic value” of the loss of “love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support.” (See: Wrongful Death Claims in California).  In this case, it appears that the decedent may not have provided financial support to his surviving parents but, they would still be entitled to the “general damages” for the loss of their loved one if they can prove that the care provided was below reasonable standards for a same or similar rehab clinic.

This is the third installment in my continuing series of famous tort cases that have come from the California court system.  Today’s case is Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425.

Facts of the Case: A graduate student attending the University of California at Berkeley met another graduate student at school and tried to start a romantic relationship with her.  When his advances were rebuffed, he started having serious psychological issues and eventually sought counseling with a therapist from the University.  During the course of his psychotherapy sessions, he made a confession to his psychologist that he intended to kill the woman that had refused his romantic gestures.  The female student, Tatiana Tarasoff, had been on a study abroad but, had recently returned to attending school at the time the threats were made.  Although the health care worker did diagnose the patient with paranoid schizophrenia and requested a detention by campus police and an involuntary hold of the patient, the patient was later released and carried out his threat by committing murder of Tarasoff.  Tarasoff’s family sued the University for the wrongful death of their daughter.

Legal Issues Presented: The main issue to be decided was whether the school psychologist had a duty to warn Tarasoff that threats had been made against her life by the patient.  A related issue was whether the communication of a threat of bodily harm or violence was something not protected by the normal doctor patient privilege which usually allows certain conversations between a doctor and a patient to remain confidential.