News & Insights

Recent Posts

Covid-19: Assessing the Legal Risk of Infectious Diseases

WSHB Employer Alert: FFCRA and DOL Regulations 4.2.20

Employment Practices Consultation & COVID-19

It’s a No-Win Situation: The Perils Facing Hospitals Due to the Coronavirus

COVID-19 Employer Alert: Summary of the CARES Act

COVID-19: New York Malpractice Law Alert

COVID-19 Employer Alert: Enactment of Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning to Announce the Winner of CLM's 2020 Outside Counsel Professional of the Year Award

WSHB Partner Robert Hellner Shares Mediation Tactics at CLM’s 2020 Annual Conference

Risk Transfer and Contractual Indemnification – Who Gets Left Holding the Bag?

New Developments in Challenging Certificates of Merit — Seeking Dismissal for Failure to Concurrently File Certificate with the Original Petition

Seven Habits that Define a Highly Effective Claims Team

Social Media Do's and Don'ts

Read the Room: Arguments that Work in Court but May Backfire at Mediation

WSHB Partner Kelly Waters Named to NJBIZ's 2020 Best Fifty Women in Business List

WSHB Names Andrew S. Kessler as Managing Partner of the Firm's Philadelphia Office

WSHB Employment Alert: California Law Banning Arbitration Agreements Temporarily on Hold

Sam McDermott on the Dos and Don’ts of Construction Project Termination

Full Disclosure! Insurer Beware: Colorado’s New Automobile Policy Disclosure Law Has Teeth!

Andrew S. Kessler Named Legal Counsel for Northeast Community Center for Behavioral Health

WSHB Elevates Ten Partners to Defined Equity Status

Eleven WSHB Attorneys Elected Into Partnership

Eighteen Attorneys Elected to WSHB Senior Counsel

Supreme Court Allows Suit Over Website Accessibility

Strategies for Defending Legionella and Mold Claims

Residential Revolution

Time Limit Demand Issues Arrive in North Carolina

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Julie A. Weerth to the Firm's New York Office

Temp Agency Absolved of Liability in Hotly Contested Action

Alternative Fee Agreements and Construction Issues: Oil and Water or Perfect Pairing!?

WSHB's Graham Miller Helps Demystify Construction Claims in the Pacific Northwest

WSHB Partner Janice Michaels Named to The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 List

One Bad Apple: Navigating through Sexual Battery and other Intentional Torts

Leading Construction Litigator Cynthia Tari Joins WSHB's Dallas Office

WSHB’s Philadelphia Partner Secures Summary Judgment in Catastrophic Premises Liability Matter

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Andrew Kessler

New Bill In New York Proposed for Signature by Governor Andrew Cuomo is Set To Make Employers "SWEAT"

Renowned Litigator Jason Williams Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Litigator Richard Young Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Published Appellate Opinion Upholding Summary Judgment in Favor of Commercial Tenant Against $3.5M Subrogation Suit

17 WSHB Lawyers Honored as 2019's Rising Stars

Arizona Supreme Court Allows Court of Appeals Decision Expanding Defendants' Ability to Enforce Settlements to Stand

WSHB’s Jason Klein Breaks Down the Good, the Sad and the Funny Sides of Claims

Litigating Sexual Battery and Other Intentional Torts: Navigating the One Bad Apple in Medical Negligence

WSHB Partner Michelle Arbitrio to Moderate Panel on Insurance and Risk Management in the Age of Mass Shootings

Girl on Fire: The Price of Pursuing the Truth in the #MeToo World

Pragmatic Issues on Settlement Versus Trial for Legal Malpractice Cases

WSHB Partner Jade Tran Named to Lawyers of Color's "Nation's Best" List

A Withering Assault

The Natural Progression of Natural Disasters

Nevada’s Governor Signs Chapter 40 Reform Bill

WA Condo Law Changes Hope to Curtail Frivolous Defect Lawsuits and Stimulate Production

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning Steps Into the Spotlight at this Year's West Coast Casualty Seminar

Professional Liability Expert Weighs In On Protecting Your Practice From Opioid Doc Arrest Fallout

Penalties, Punitives, and Granny Cams: The Escalating Lure of Elder Abuse Litigation

Are Structured Settlements Still Relevant

Game Changing Trends Affecting Construction

He's Not My Guy: The Joint-Employer Doctrine

WSHB Case Update: DOL Proposes Increase to Minimum Salary Threshold

WSHB and DWF Announce Exclusive Association

WSHB Expands in California: New Sonoma County Location

WSHB Third Most Diverse Law Firm in the Nation

Partner Kimberly Jones Appointed Chair-Elect of the Florida Bar’s Appellate Practice Section

Failing To Preserve Evidence; Exception Carved Out By Pennsylvania Superior Court

Case Update: Rashidi v Moser

December 17, 2014

Hamid Rashidi v. Franklin Moser —P.3d—(2014) Westlaw citation: 2014 WL 701400 No. S214430 December 15, 2014


The application of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) cap of $250,000 on damages for non-economic losses, codified in Civil Code Section 3333.2, is limited to an injured party’s award for damages at trial against the defendant health care provider and does not include settlements of other health care providers in the same action, unless the judgment at trial includes a finding of apportionment of fault of those that settled.


The Supreme Court has narrowed the application of the cap on non-economic damages. A defendant health care provider can no longer seek to offset non-economic damages awarded against him based upon pre-trial settlements of other defendants. The non-settling defendant must establish comparative fault of the settling defendants to secure an offset.

The Supreme Court also addressed the Legislative intent of the MICRA cap by clarifying that the primary concern in its enactment was to combat “capricious” jury awards. MICRA statutes were enacted at a time when the state was in the midst of a serious healthcare crisis. The Supreme Court found that the Legislature did not intend for there to be a cap on non-economic damages allotted in settlement, nor did it intend for any such allotment to be included in the statutory cap of $250,000. The cap was intended to apply to money judgments only. As a result, in actions against multiple health care providers, plaintiffs may enter into settlement negotiations with one or more of the defendants to include unlimited compensation for non-economic damages. By placing a limitation on the maximum potential award of non-economic damages at trial, the Legislature ultimately increased the likelihood of settlement by making it more favorable to plaintiffs.


This decision will likely impact future litigation, as it may encourage injured parties to name multiple defendants in actions for damages with the hope of settling with one or more of the defendants and thereby potentially circumventing the MICRA limitations. Plaintiff can still proceed to trial with the non-settling defendant and receive up to an additional $250,000 in non-economic damages. With there being no limitation on non-economic damages for settlements, we may see an overall increase in the number of lawsuits in general, as well as an increase in the degree of frivolity.

In turn, non-settling defendants may be inclined to rigorously challenge Good Faith Settlement Applications and certainly, must strongly consider submitting evidence at trial of comparative fault of the settling defendants. This will undoubtedly affect the length of trial as well as cost. Finally, there may be long-term ramifications affecting our insurance industry as it dilutes the favorable impact of the cap on non-economic damages, which has been in place since 1975.


In a recent Supreme Court case, twenty-six-year-old, Hamid Rashidi, lost his vision in one eye following a surgical procedure performed by Franklin Moser, M.D., for a complaint of excessive nose bleed. Co-defendants, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Biosphere Medical, Inc., entered into separate pre-trial settlements in the amount of $350,000 and $2,000,000, respectively. At trial, Dr. Moser did not introduce evidence of liability as to either settling defendant. The jury found in favor plaintiff and awarded plaintiff $125,000 in economic damages for future medical care, $331,250 for past non-economic damages, and $993,750 for future non-economic damages. The trial court reduced the non-economic damages to $250,000, pursuant to Civil Code Section 3222.2.

In post-trial motions, Dr. Moser argued that he was entitled to offsets against the judgment, given the settlements with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Biosphere Medical, Inc. The trial court rejected this claim, finding no basis for allocation of non-economic versus economic damages in the settlement agreements and based upon the fact that the jury did not make a finding as to the settling defendants’ proportion of fault. Dr. Moser appealed, contending that he was entitled to offsets as to the jury’s award for both economic and non-economic damages. Dr. Moser did not contest the finding that he failed to establish comparative fault at trial. The Court of Appeal held that offsets were required pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 877 and Civil Code Section 1431.2, and reduced the non-economic award to $16,655.

Plaintiff challenged the decision and the Supreme Court concluded that the cap imposed by MICRA applies only to judgments awarding non-economic damages. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal erred in allowing Dr. Moser a setoff against damages for which he alone was responsible.


Privacy Policy      |      Site Map

© 2020 Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required