Every state possesses unique medical malpractice liability laws, which will ultimately influence a patient’s ability to recover damages in general and from whom the claimant can recover damages. The state of California has its own state-specific take on malpractice liability laws, which are outlined below. It should be noted, however, than any viable malpractice claim, regardless of the state jurisdiction where filed, revolves around a claimant proving several critical elements, including doctor-patient relationship, duty of care owed, breach of duty of care (negligence), proximate cause of damages, and viable damage claims. Consult with a lawyer in your state to learn more about the relative strength and merit of your medical malpractice claim as soon as you recognize damages as the result of negligence have occurred. It is important to note that every state has statutes of limitations (In California, statute of limitations period is one (1) year from date of discovery, with no more than three (3) years from date of cause of action), which make filing claims against liable parties a time-sensitive matter.
Comparative Negligence Laws in California
The state of California follows what is known as pure comparative negligence rules. This means that a claimant (patient filing a medical malpractice claim) can recover damages regardless of his or her proportion of fault in causing their injuries. However, all awards are reduced proportionally per the assigned level of fault assessed to each party. For example, a patient that is viewed, as 10% at fault for his or her own injuries will still be able to recover 90% of any damage award in the courts. In turn, a patient that is found to be 99% at fault for his or her own injuries may still recover damages of 1% of the value of the award amount. This method for determining liability based on comparative or contributory negligence will vary from other states and only applies to claims cases occurring in the state of California.
Vicarious Liability Laws in California
The state of California, through legal precedents including Jacoves v. United Merchandising Corp., has found that any negligent act committed by a physician or healthcare employee creates liability for a hospital or healthcare clinic, if the negligent individual is perceived or actually is an employee or agent of the hospital or healthcare clinic. The majority of cases involving vicarious liability debates center around whether a given negligent individual is ostensibly an agent of the hospital. The courts in California have found that if a third party believes the negligent party is an agent of a hospital; he or she does create liability for a hospital.
Get Legal Help with Medical Malpractice in California
In short, the relative complexity of medical malpractice law, coupled with the highly individualized nature of each malpractice claims case, requires that patients seek the insight and counsel of a medical malpractice lawyer to recover any form of favorable damage award or settlement.
