|
Welcome to Gray Matters, Gray·Duffy, LLP’s seasonal newsletter, keeping you up-to-date on legal trends and firm news. If you’d like to be removed from our list, please click the “SafeUnsubscribe” button at the bottom of this email. |
Read My Lips:
How Plaintiffs Behave at Deposition Can Foretell How Juries Will React to Their Testimony at Trial
 By:Michael S. Eisenbaum
Published in Best’s Review
Some lawyers fight to take money, others fight to keep it. In this constant battle, 95 percent of the cases that go to trial do so because one side or the other has not accurately evaluated the case. It is not always about the amount of the plaintiff’s medical bills or the type of injury. It is often more about the nature of the individual who was injured. How well this person connects with a jury will largely determine whether the award of general or non-economic damages will be at the high end of the spectrum, or more toward the lower end. Although the caliber of the attorneys representing each side should not be overlooked either, all else being equal, the value of an injury can double or even triple based on the ability of the plaintiff to make a real connection with a jury.
There is no set formula for determining general or non-economic damages, which are generally considered to be compensation for the injured person’s “pain and suffering” as a result of the injury. This includes compensation for both past and future pain and suffering. Roughly 20 years ago, defense attorneys and insurance companies defending personal injury cases frequently employed a formula of three to five times the reasonable medical expenses when attempting to reach a settlement of a particular case. The theory was that three times the medical expenses allows for one-third to cover medical expenses, one third to cover attorneys fees and one third is left over for the plaintiff.
Continue reading Read My Lips. |
Breaking Down the Privette Doctrine:
Assessing Liability Shifts
Published on ForConstructionPros.com
The Privette Doctrine, which holds that owners and general contractors are not liable for injuries to the employees of subcontractors unless they have affirmatively done something by act or omission to cause the injury, has an almost 20 year history in California. In 1993, the California Supreme Court in Privette v Superior Court found that a homeowner was not liable for injuries when a roofing subcontractor’s employee was burned by hot tar. Over the years, the doctrine has been extended to general contractors. At the same time, exceptions have been carved out of the original holding involving breach of a non delegable duty imposed by statute, for supplying defective equipment and for the failure to warn of hidden dangerous conditions. None of these exceptions undermined the primary rationale behind Privette shifting liability for injuries to subcontractor employees back to the subcontractor for policy reasons due to the availability of workers compensation benefits. In the absence of affirmative negligence of the property owner or general contractor, the courts have reasoned that the subcontractors are in the best position to protect the welfare of their own employees.
The California Supreme Court has decided a case which redefined the parameters of the Privette Doctrine. Specifically, in the case of Seabright Insurance v US Airways, the court is held that the person hiring an independent contractor implicitly delegates to the contractor the duty to comply with all statutory and regulatory safety requirements.
Learn more about Breaking Down the Privette Doctrine. |
|
15760 Ventura Blvd., 16th Floor
Encino, CA 91436
(818) 907-4000
702 Marshall Street, Suite 600
Redwood City, CA 94063
(650) 365-7343 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
So You Think You Know the Law… | |
Test your knowledge on issues related to Medi-Cal by answering the following questions.
1. If a plaintiff has received benefits from Medi-Cal and files a lawsuit against someone who may be liable for the plaintiff’s injuries, the plaintiff must give written notice of the lawsuit to Medi-Cal by personal service or registered mail within 30 days of its filing and file proof of such notice in his lawsuit and the defendant’s liability insurance carrier must also give notice of the lawsuit to Medi-Cal.
(True/False)
2. A plaintiff who has received benefits from Medi-Cal and receives a settlement, judgment or award in a lawsuit, does not need to give notice to Medi-Cal for the case outcome to be deemed final or satisfied.
(True/False)
3. If a liable defendant’s insurance carrier enters into a settlement of a personal injury claim with a plaintiff who has received benefits from Medi-Cal, the carrier is not required to give notice to Medi-Cal of the settlement.
(True/False)
4. The plaintiff can get a reduction of Medi-Cal’s lien on a personal injury settlement including 25 percent for attorney’s fees and a pro-rate share of the costs of litigation.
(True/False)
5. A hospital has an automatic lien on a judgment or settlement for the reasonable costs of medical care to a personal injury plaintiff.
Please feel free to contact
Rene Faucher if you have any questions about Medi-Cal. |
|
Firm Announcements | |
Jack Liebhaber recently spoke on “Workers’ Compensation Claims” at two seminars in Southern California. Mr. Liebhaber discussed how to handle a workers compensation claim/lien in a third party case and how they affect bodily injury claims. Mr. Liebhaber shared examples, statues and case laws pertaining to workers compensation claims.
More than 100 people attended the two seminars arranged by Mercury Insurance Group.
If you are interested in discussing worker’s compensation with your company, please contact
Jack Liebhaber.
Read more Gray·Duffy news here. |
|
|
