Jacob Regar Law

Proposition 46 was unsuccessful. That means that the $250,000 artificial damage cap for physical pain and mental suffering caused by medical negligence remains the law of the land here in California. This damage cap has existed since its institution in the 1975 Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). That is really too bad for the rights of California patients. Today's value of (1975's) $250,000 is less than $60,000. The point is not that $60,000 is not a lot of mon...ey. It is. But it is pennys on the dollar for someone who loses a limb because of medical negligence. Or for someone who loses a child due to doctor error. No other group besides the medical community (and in reality their insurance carriers) are afforded the liability shield of an artificial damage cap. If you are a negligent driver, you are responsible for all of the damage that you cause. If you are a negligent anything, you are responsible for all of the damage attributed to your carelessness. The insurance industry spent around $60,000,000 to defeat Proposition 46. The insurance industry bombarded the public with misleading and untrue messages that health care costs would increase if Proposition 46 passed. No one can stomach rising health care costs. But, when you really examine the numbers, the existence MICRA's damage cap has not reduced health care costs. And this is true in states around the nation with artificial damage caps for medical negligence. Medical malpractice insurance carriers have consistently held on to the majority of each dollar that they receive from their insured's premiums. And no one expects that to change even though Proposition 46 did not pass. The good news is that we are talking about this issue. And Californian's who went to the ballot and voted for or against Proposition 46 had the opportunity to consider the nearly 4-decade-old damage cap and whether it is fair. A lot of people do not know that patients who are injured because of medical malpractice are severely limited in the amounts which they can recover for general damages. In time, I have no doubt that Californian's will want equal accountability for all professionals. Many doctors and nurses are heroes. But, negligence is an act that shows the actor did not care about the consequences of what they were doing. And when you consider that medical malpractice is the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S., it becomes clear that full accountability for medical errors needs to happen. Removal of artificial damage caps may even incentivize medical professionals to increase their level of care.

The state of Florida did a great thing today to help victims of medical malpractice. The state Supreme Court decided that their state's arbitrary damage caps for medical malpractice cases are unconstitutional because [they] bear no rational relationship to a legitimate state objective. In FL, at least, gone are the days of pretending that the devastating losses suffered by the survivors of wrongful death victims killed by medical negligence are worth less than the sufferin...g of survivors of loved ones killed in a car wreck. Wake up Californians, know that the damage caps in CA limit medical malpractice victims to $250,000 for general damages. By the way, this figure became law in the 1970's. It's present value would be over $1 million, but, it has not been adjusted for inflation because of powerful medical and insurance lobbying. Californians are severely limited in their options when they suffer serious injuries due to professional negligence in the health care setting. This is due to extremely high case costs and low win rates. What's interesting is no one (including this lawyer) seems to think there should be statutory limits on recovery in legal malpractice cases, or accounting, etc. And please do not be misled by the spurious argument that health care costs will be affected by removing the draconian general damage caps in medical malpractice cases. It simply is not true. The empirical data shows otherwise. But, lets not take away from FLs day. This is great news. Who knows, FL health care providers may just step their game up and improve patient care? Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com//florida-supreme-court-thro http://miamiherald.typepad.com//florida-supreme-court-thro

In the consumer law side of my practice, I see instances where consumers suffer impairment to their credit rating. For instance, when a creditor, like an auto finance company, furnishes incorrect or incomplete information to the three nationwide Credit Reporting Agencies (CRAs), a borrower can appear to be less credit-worthy when they go out into the marketplace. Impaired credit rating can lead to higher interest rates and denied credit applications. To enable consumers to b...etter safeguard their credit information, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) entitles consumers to request a free credit report from each of the three nationwide credit reporting agencies (CRAs), Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax. Typically, but not always, your credit reports will reflect consistent information across each nationwide CRA. So a tip to maximize your right to obtain a free credit report from each CRA is to stagger your requests from each CRA at different intervals throughout the year. Alternatively, you can request your credit reports from each of the three CRAs at the same time. You can only take advantage of this right to obtain your free credit reports through one website which has been set up by the three nationwide CRAs for this purpose. Also, keep in mind that the law does not entitle you to receive your FICO credit score for free. This is a different service, entirely, although your score is determined by information contained your credit reports. https://www.annualcreditreport.com/index.action

My new post reminding everyone about Brain Injury Awareness Day - March 12, 2014.

You can view maps on cell phones while driving. CA Court of Appeal confirmed this in a recent decision. Immediate reaction by most will be disappointment in the Court's decision, but reading a map while driving poses the same risk regardless of the type of map (e.g., traditional vs. electronic). You can still be negligent and even reckless by viewing a map while driving, but it will depend on the facts. http://www.nbclosangeles.com//Drivers-Can-Read-Cellphone-M