Girardi | Keese

Who Really Lost When California Voters Said 'No' to Prop. 46

Unfortunately, it seems as though some California voters thought Proposition 46 was all about increasing trial lawyers' fees in medical malpractice cases. Fb14352, a reader who commented on Kenny Goldberg's KPBS report, wrote, "Drug testing of Doctors was just a ruse. The real reason for the Prop 46 was to get more incentive for lawyers to sue and make more money. I am so happy that Californians could see through their lies."

It is true that a lawyer's fee would increase proportionately to an increase in the injured patient's compensation. A cap on damages for pain and suffering (currently set at $250,000) limits the patient's financial compensation and by extension the lawyer's fee. It is a business reality that medical malpractice cases, which lawyers generally take on a contingency fee basis (no recovery, no fee), are very expensive and can be risky to take on (another reason to doubt the so-called "frivolous lawsuit" epidemic).

Allowing for a higher fee helps lawyers accept that risk and allows greater access to justice for injured patients, who otherwise may not be able to find a lawyer with the resources and expertise necessary to help them.

Defeat of Prop 46 Only Hurts Injured People

Beyond the business reality, however, is the fact of the often-grievous impact on a patient from medical malpractice itself, a topic that seems to have been generally overlooked and largely ignored in most mainstream reporting on Prop 46.

Melanie Mason for the Los Angeles Times reports on the measure's three components (raising the cap; drug testing for impaired physicians; requiring prescribing physicians to check a state database to curb drug abuse), that will no longer come to fruition as a result of its defeat. And Alejandro Lazo for the Wall Street Journal writes that the $250,000 damages cap makes it "hard to bring cases to trial."

But then there is Annette Ramirez, and others like her, who were seriously injured from medical negligence, whose lives will never be the same. You can see Ramirez's story in the video below.

Lost to Prop 46's defeat is Ramirez's sense of justice.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

DISCLAIMER: Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result. Any testimonials and endorsements at this site do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter or potential legal matter.


The Soto Verdict

Girardi | Keese attorneys have won a $2.3M verdict for a Long Beach resident run over by a Parks & Rec truck. Read more here.

The Madero Verdict

Attorney Christopher T. Aumais persuaded a San Bernardino County jury to deliver an  exceptionally high verdict in an area known for low jury awards.

A Champion of Justice

Partner Amy Fisch Solomon was a Champion of Justice in 2015, proving that success in law isn't just about the size of your verdict or settlement.

Own a VW Diesel?

Read about VW's emissions scandal and 
our class action against the automaker.


Learn About Our Referral Network Read More

Our Attorneys

Meet our award-winning team Read More


The true measure of a lawyer isn’t the awards, but what the awards say about the lawyer: dedication and commitment to the client.

Super Lawyers Distinguished AV | Lexis Nexis | Martindale-Hubbell | Peer Review Rated For Ethical Standards and Legal Ability American Association For Justice Consumer Attorneys Association Of Los Angeles Consumer Attorneys California Supreme Court Icon 7 Icon Best Lawyers | Best Law Firms 2014 | U.S. News American Board of Trial Advocates Law Dragon America's Top 100 Attorneys | Lifetime Achievement Martindale-Hubbell | AV Preeminent | Peer Review Rated For Highest Level of Professional Excellence | 2017