SACRAMENTO - California has maintained its #2 ranking in the latest “Judicial Hellholes” report, released today by the American Tort Reform Foundation. The state was ranked #2 in last year’s report as well, and has been included in one form or another every year since the rankings began in 2002. The issues highlighted in this year’s report include meritless class actions, shakedown consumer and disabled access lawsuits, exceptionally high punitive damages, and an inability to stop vexatious litigants.

The annual Judicial Hellholes report compiles the most significant court rulings, legislative actions, and abuses within the civil justice system in various jurisdictions. While the city of Philadelphia claimed the #1 ranking for the second year in a row, this year’s report says of California that “perhaps no other state more clearly illustrates the direct impact of excessive litigation on job creation and the ability of businesses to survive and thrive.”

“These reports have done a fine job of documenting the ways in which California allows abuse by plaintiffs’ attorneys throughout our state,” CJAC President Kim Stone said. “The fact that we continue to rank as one of the worst judicial hellholes in the country shows that we have a long way to go to create a more level playing field between defendants and plaintiffs. As these reports have shown, in many lawsuits the plaintiffs weren’t even harmed and didn’t lose any money, but they are still able to force defendant businesses to waste precious time and resources.”

Among the specific developments cited in the report from the past year are:

California was, however, also mentioned in the report’s “Points of Light” section. The report cites the state Supreme Court’s ruling in August that prevents plaintiffs from recovering “phantom damages”, the difference between the amount of medical expenses billed by a doctor (the “retail rate”) and the amount that an insurer actually pays at the rate that had been previously negotiated with the doctor.

The full report and reports from previous years can be found at www.judicialhellholes.org.

The study relies on a new econometric model that looks at each of the 50 states’ economic and legal environment data - such as number of tort claims filed, frequency of large awards, and the concentration of lawyers practicing - and creates a Legal Environment Benchmark that all states can be compared to. To estimate how businesses would respond to lower tort costs, or “tort tax” relief, the study looks at businesses’ previous responses to tax reductions to determine the resulting impact on employment. The authors find that improving a state’s legal environment is a viable option for stimulating economic activity that does not reduce tax receipts or increase government spending.

“The research continues to show that California’s legal environment is holding our economy back,” CJAC President Kim Stone said. “This is further evidence of why we have to make changes that get businesses to believe that it makes sense for them to be in our state and to hire more Californians. The empirical research tells us there is a problem. The surveys of business leaders tell us there is a problem. It is pretty clear that legal reform is part of the solution.”

California’s total tort costs amount to $32 billion, far higher than any other state, according to the study. California’s legal environment increases tort costs by 16.4% when compared to the Legal Environment Benchmark, which translates to $5.2 billion in higher costs.

The study finds that the increases in employment that could result from reducing these costs range from 0.65% to 1.76% in California, which currently would mean between 115,000 and 320,000 jobs.

The full study, which was conducted on behalf of the Institute for Legal Reform, can be found here.

SACRAMENTO - The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) is asking Californians to recognize the impact of excessive litigation in our state as Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week begins today. CJAC is renewing its call for reforming California laws that make it easier for plaintiffs’ attorneys to sue and receive unjust fee awards at the expense of our state’s businesses and public agencies.

While there is no shortage of examples of lawsuit abuse in California, here are a few examples from the past year worthy of special mention:

“I would encourage lawmakers to look more closely in the coming year at lawsuit abuse and the ways we can reduce it,” CJAC President Kim Stone said. “It is important to remember that small businesses are so often targeted and have the most at stake given their limited resources. Small businesses incur 83% of the tort costs in America even though they only bring in 22% of business revenues, according to the Institute for Legal Reform. If we want businesses to do more hiring, we are going to need to reduce these costs.”

CJAC has pushed for a number of reforms to address lawsuits likes these and abuse that takes place in a number of other categories, including:

SACRAMENTO - Today the California Supreme Court ruled in Howell v. Hamilton Meats that a plaintiff may only collect as damages the amount that actually had to be paid by insurers for medical treatment rather than the retail rate that medical providers charge for that treatment. In its opinion the Court stated that it is not appropriate to “expand the scope of economic damages to include expenses the plaintiff never incurred.” The case stems from an incident where a Hamilton Meat truck collided with the plaintiff as she was driving.

Medical providers negotiate reimbursement rates with insurance companies that are lower than the retail rate they would charge to someone without insurance. This allows them to gain access to the insurance provider’s customers and a broader pool of patients.

CJAC President Kim Stone made the following statement:

“The Supreme Court absolutely made the right decision and we are very pleased. This case addresses a situation where a plaintiff had health insurance for which a negotiated rate was already agreed upon, so the retail rate is irrelevant and should not apply. The medical providers were reimbursed appropriately at the negotiated rate. The plaintiff was compensated for all out-of-pocket costs. This is fair and prevents an unjustified windfall for plaintiffs’ attorneys.”

The Supreme Court’s opinion can be read here, and an amicus brief submitted by CJAC to the Supreme Court can be read here.

SACRAMENTO - The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) is strongly supporting legislation introduced this week by Senator Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga) that would provide some relief for Californians from abusive disabled access lawsuits.

Senate Bill 783 would require a potential plaintiff to notify a property owner of an alleged violation. The owner would then have 30 days to respond with a plan to fix the problem or with a rebuttal to the allegations. If the owner decides to fix the problem, he or she would have 120 days to do so. If the improvements were not made within 120 days, the plaintiff could then file suit.

“Access for the disabled is the law, and is righteous and necessary,” said CJAC President Kim Stone. “Unfortunately, some lawyers are profiting through exploitative lawsuits that do not improve access. Giving property owners 120 days to make the improvements is a reasonable approach that will accomplish the goal of disabled access without putting an undue strain on small businesses that are sometimes facing a choice between reaching a settlement or shutting down.”

California law goes above and beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Under California’s Unruh Act, individuals may recover $4,000 per violation, plus attorney fees. That creates a situation that can be exploited by lawyers looking for technical violations because there is a high incentive for property owners to settle rather than go through costly litigation.

Legislation enacted in California in 2008, SB 1608, enacted several reforms to help businesses meet their obligations and avoid litigation. However, there continue to be serial filers across the state.

“There are numerous cases that have been documented where individuals go from business to business looking for violations, filing hundreds or even thousands of claims,” Stone added. “They know that they can take advantage of our law for financial gain because so many business owners will just settle to make the case go away. The problem is there is no enforcement to make sure the improvements needed actually occur. That has led to a trend of ‘drive-by’ ADA lawsuits where lawyers gets their settlement money and just move on to the next target. This is not the way to improve disabled access.”

The introduction of SB 783 comes after a proposal in Congress this year by California Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon), H.R. 881, that would provide a 90-day window to make necessary ADA improvements.

SB 783 is written as an urgency measure, meaning it would take effect immediately upon being signed into law, and will now go before the State Senate for consideration.

SACRAMENTO - The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) is calling attention to the 2011 “Best/Worst States for Business” survey released this week by Chief Executive Magazine, in which 550 CEOs participated and found California to be the worst state in the nation for business for the seventh year in a row. CJAC President Kim Stone issued the following statement:

“Legal reform that reduces lawsuit abuse is absolutely essential to making California an easier place to do business. California is consistently ranked at the bottom of states in multiple surveys and reports on economic issues every year. Last year, the Institute for Legal Reform ranked California’s legal climate 46th out of the 50 states and the American Tort Reform Association found the state to be the second worst ‘Judicial Hellhole’ in the country as well.

“Policymakers can’t expect to make economic recovery a reality when business leaders don’t like doing business in California. Businesses in our state have to deal with a legal system that gives plaintiffs an unfair advantage in class actions, makes it easier for plaintiffs to get exorbitant punitive damages, makes it easier to exploit businesses in disabled access cases, makes it easier for plaintiffs to get awards in junk asbestos lawsuits, and the list goes on. It is tough to grow a business under these circumstances, yet growing businesses is what we need to reduce unemployment and to provide the state with the tax revenues it needs to provide critical services. It is time to make things a little easier for business, and reducing the number of lawsuits against them is one important way of doing so.”

A summary of the survey can be found here.

SACRAMENTO - The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) praised a new report released today by the California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse titled “At Every Turn…California Chooses Bad Lawsuits Instead of Good Jobs.” The report details how a number of California laws relating to class actions, workplace and environmental regulations, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have cost people their jobs, prevented businesses from growing, and delayed major projects indefinitely that had many jobs attached to them.

“The Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse have done a superb job of providing specific, real-world examples of lawsuits causing job loss and preventing economic growth,” CJAC President Kim Stone said. “This report is very timely as California’s leaders are focusing on ways to get our economy going again. I would encourage them to take a close look at what is in this report and consider not only the economic impact but the basic human impact of lawsuit abuse and how much it can disrupt someone’s life.”

In one case highlighted in the report, a doughnut shop in Reedley, CA was sued for noncompliance with ADA even though the owner’s daughter who helps manage the shop has been in a wheelchair her whole life and had no complaints about access. A nearby restaurant targeted by the same personal injury firm for ADA violations had to actually close. In another example, a lawsuit filed over environmental concerns has blocked a solar energy project in Riverside County that would create 600 jobs and generate enough green energy to power 75,000 homes.

“The ‘common-sense reforms’ identified in the report - leveling the playing field in class action suits, product liability reform, common-sense limits on punitive damages, and practical ADA reform - are proposals CJAC has continually advocated for,” Stone added. “Assemblyman Brian Nestande is carrying a CJAC sponsored bill this year, AB 271, that would give defendants the same right of appeal that plaintiffs have on class action certification. This report helps demonstrate the need for such a bill and we hope the Legislature develops a stronger appreciation for it.”

The full report can be found at www.badlawsuitscostgoodjobs.com.

SACRAMENTO - Kim Stone, President of the Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC), released the following statement today encouraging the State Supreme Court to consider making certain rulings prospective only and to allow a brief period of time for parties to implement the Court’s ruling. This comes in response to the 76 lawsuits, according to public filings, that had been filed against a variety of businesses as of yesterday in the aftermath of the Court’s February 10th ruling in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., which stated that merchants cannot request customers’ ZIP codes during transactions:

“The fact that this case went to the Supreme Court shows that there was a great amount of confusion about the law in question. We are concerned by the idea of holding a business liable for actions that were taken before the courts had made a final decision on what the law means, particularly when that business was not even a part of the case.

“Our concern is not with the Court’s interpretation of the law. In this case, however, both the trial court and the appellate court had actually ruled in favor of the defendant prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiff, which is further evidence of the uncertainty surrounding the law.

“Less than a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling, more than a dozen lawsuits had been filed against businesses for violations, and that number was 76 as of yesterday. The businesses that have been sued will now have to spend significant time and money defending themselves for actions that at the time they thought were legal.

“Thus, we would respectfully request that in future cases of a similar nature the Court consider limiting the liability that results from its ruling to future violations only.

“We also believe it would be reasonable, given how quickly suits were filed, for the Court to consider allowing affected parties a brief period of time to implement the ruling so that it can be interpreted appropriately and so there is adequate time for the new procedures to be communicated to what in many businesses amounts to thousands of affected employees.”

Senate Bill 603 would allow a person to be designated a “vexatious litigant” whether they are self-represented or have an attorney. Vexatious litigants are those who continually re-litigate decided issues or file meritless and harassing claims. Under current law, only someone who is self-represented can be designated a vexatious litigant. Once someone receives this designation, they must receive pre-approval from the courts for any future filings and pay for a bond to cover the initial costs of the filing.

“Our court system is overwhelmed by the number of cases it has to deal with and we need to make sure that these cases are worth the court’s time,” Senator Berryhill said. “It is a shame that honest, hard-working people can end up having to spend a fortune defending themselves against a lawsuit that has no merit. If we want economic recovery in this state, we need changes like SB 603 that will help free up people’s money so they can spend, invest, and hire rather than defend themselves against lawsuits that have no basis.”

Excessive and unwarranted lawsuits have been identified as a significant problem in California that greatly hinders the state’s economy. The 2010 State Liability Systems Ranking study conducted by the Institute for Legal Reform found that California’s legal system ranks 46th in the nation. The study also found that over two-thirds (67%) of business attorneys say that a state’s legal environment impacts important business decisions at their companies.

“Just because someone finds an attorney to represent them doesn’t mean their claim has merit,” CJAC President Kim Stone said. “Some of the most common vexatious litigants are serial filers of Americans with Disabilities Act claims that target small businesses for technical violations. While not all ADA access lawsuits are without merit, this bill would allow a judge to name a serial plaintiff a vexatious litigant whether or not that plaintiff is represented by a lawyer. Given the state of our economy and the budget cuts our courts are facing, we simply cannot afford to deal with these types of lawsuits.”

SB 603 will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee in the coming weeks.

SACRAMENTO - The Civil Justice Association of California expressed disappointment at the state Supreme Court’s ruling today in a case involving Proposition 64, the landmark ballot measure CJAC sponsored in 2004 that requires plaintiffs to have actually suffered some injury in order to file lawsuits under the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

The court ruled 5-2 in the case of Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court that plaintiffs were actually damaged by the company’s claim that locks it produced were made in the U.S. when a few of the components in the locks were produced overseas.

“We disagree with today’s ruling because Proposition 64 clearly states that plaintiffs can’t file lawsuits based on the Unfair Competition Law unless they have suffered injury in fact and have lost money or property,” said CJAC President Kimberly Stone.

Justice Ming Chin, who wrote the dissenting opinion, agreed.

“In direct contravention of the electorate’s intent, the majority disregards the express language of (Proposition 64) and makes it easier for a plaintiff to achieve standing under the UCL,” Chin wrote, in a dissent joined by Justice Carol Corrigan.

“All plaintiffs now have to allege is that they would not have bought the mislabeled product… This cannot be what the electorate intended when it sought ‘unequivocally to narrow the category of persons who could sue businesses under the UCL.’”

Stone warned that the court’s ruling may further clog the state’s courts, at a time when Governor Brown is proposing to cut $200 million in funding for court operations as part of his plan to balance the state budget.

“Especially in an era when our courts are already overcrowded and facing severe budget cuts, it’s no time to open the floodgates of litigation in cases where no damage resulted,” Stone said.

“Although the opinion was narrow and strongly upheld the central point of Proposition 64 - you still have to have suffered damage to file a UCL lawsuit - it will still lead to more litigation. Making it easier for a plaintiff to achieve standing results in more class action claims and puts further pressure on businesses to settle these cases to avoid the high costs of litigating. This will give businesses already reluctant to locate or expand here because of our poor legal climate further pause and jeopardize the state’s economic recovery.”

Proposition 64, which was approved by a 59 percent to 41 percent margin in November 2004, was put before the voters by CJAC to rid the state of frivolous lawsuits in cases where nobody suffered any real injury or loss. Ironically, as Chin noted, during the campaign to enact the measure, the Kwikset case was specifically noted by CJAC and other sponsors of the measure as an example of the kind of shakedown lawsuit that Proposition 64 was designed to eliminate.

CJAC commends President Obama for supporting the concept of nationwide medical malpractice reform in the State of the Union address. California’s doctors, medical providers, and legal reform advocates are willing and eager to work with Congress and the Administration to bring reforms that have worked successfully for many years in California to the rest of the nation.

At a time when trial lawyers are working hard to weaken or repeal California’s landmark Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), we are encouraged that the President last night said he was “willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one … suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.” MICRA has done just that in California.

MICRA allows for unlimited economic damages for past and future medical costs, lost wages, and punitive damages in medical malpractice cases - and also provides up to $250,000 for speculative, non-economic damages (so-called pain and suffering), while limiting attorneys’ fees so that more money goes to the patient.

The law has stabilized medical malpractice insurance costs, preserving patient access to thousands of physicians, nurses, hospitals, clinics, dentists, and other healthcare providers. In fact, just increasing the amount of non-economic damages allowed under MICRA from $250,000 to $500,000 would raise healthcare costs in California by at least $9.5 billion annually, according to a 2008 report by California’s former nonpartisan legislative analyst. That translates into $1,032 annually for a family of four.

SACRAMENTO - Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger embraced diversity in his judicial appointments, appointing trial court judges with experience in a wide spectrum of the law, according to an analysis by the Civil Justice Association of California, the state’s leading advocacy group for legal reform.

That diversity is sharply different from the appointees of Schwarzenegger’s predecessor, Gray Davis, who selected most of his judicial appointments from a much narrower pool - a large component of which included trial lawyers.

“Elections have consequences, and one of the greatest consequences is the makeup of the state’s judiciary,” said CJAC President Kimberly Stone. “The wide disparity in the backgrounds of the judges appointed by Governors Davis and Schwarzenegger clearly demonstrates that governors leave a big mark on the courthouse for many years.

“We urge Governor Brown to keep the big picture in mind as he begins to appoint judges because the men and women he appoints will play a major role in shaping the state’s overall legal climate, which for too long has been near the bottom nationally and makes it less likely that companies will locate or expand in California. In addition to racial diversity, judges can and should come from all walks of legal life: prosecutors, litigators, business lawyers, court commissioners, government attorneys, and others.”

California ranked 46th in the Institute for Legal Reform’s 2010 survey of the lawsuit climates in each of the 50 states, a regular assessment of state liability systems conducted by the respected, nonpartisan Harris Interactive market research firm. That’s down from 44th in the previous year’s survey.

During his seven years in office, Schwarzenegger appointed 585 Superior Court judges. Of those, 32 percent were lawyers in private practice, 27 percent came from district attorneys’ offices, and 19 percent were court commissioners - lawyers elected by Superior Court judges and given the power to hear and make decisions in certain kinds of legal matters.

In comparison, 48 percent of Davis’s 263 appointees during his five years in office were lawyers in private practice, 16 percent came from district attorneys’ offices, and 13 percent were court commissioners. CJAC compiled the background of the appointees based on press releases issued by each governor. (Charts fully outlining the backgrounds of the judges appointed by each Governor are available below.)

The differences in approach were particularly noticeable when examining the areas in which the lawyers in private practice engaged.

Schwarzenegger picked lawyers who practiced in virtually all areas of the law. The largest number of private practice lawyers and sole practitioners he selected were general practice lawyers (18 percent), followed closely by attorneys in civil defense (15 percent), business law (13 percent) and general civil law (11 percent).

In contrast, 61 percent of the private practice lawyers appointed by Davis practiced business law, and 29 percent were plaintiffs’ attorneys or workers’ compensation lawyers. In fact, Davis appointed almost as many trial lawyers (36) as he did prosecutors (41). In contrast, Schwarzenegger appointed just 17 personal injury lawyers, which accounted for only 9 percent of his private practice appointees.

In California, most Superior Court judges are appointed by the governor when a vacancy occurs. Voters then ratify that selection at the next election, and the appointee then serves out the remainder of the term. Most trial court judges run unopposed for reelection. Stone said that process is probably the best judicial selection system in the country since politics and political contributions are largely absent, but only when the governor makes good appointments to begin with.

“Governor Brown has stated many times that he wants to rebuild California and make it the Golden State once again,” Stone said. “Appointing common-sense judges who will enforce the law fairly is an enormous part of making that promise a reality.”

SACRAMENTO - The Civil Justice Association of California, the state’s leading advocacy group for legal reform, has selected Kimberly Stone to serve as its new president, the Association announced today.

Stone is currently Director of Government Affairs for Blue Shield of California, a position she moved to early last summer after serving as CJAC’s Vice President - Legislation. She joined CJAC in 2005 as Legislative Director and was especially effective in coalition building and countering legislation detrimental to CJAC members and the civil justice system.

“I am honored to have been selected to lead the Civil Justice Association of California and look forward to continuing the important work of building a stronger California and creating a more fair civil justice system,” Stone said.

“Excessive litigation costs California consumers and taxpayers money that they should not have to spend. California businesses small and large are facing unprecedented challenges in trying to help the economy rebound by creating jobs and revenue for the state. Government entities, too, face unnecessary litigation costs and avoidance expenses during a time of unprecedented financial challenges. I will work to ensure that employers are protected from legislation and lawsuits that drive up costs and make it harder for California to begin growing strong again,” she said.

Stone will officially take the helm on January 18.

“I’ve had the privilege of working with Kim at CJAC,” said John H. Sullivan, who departs the Association this month after becoming its president in 1995. “She understands CJAC’s unique role as an issue-driven organization that works on behalf of a unique coalition - small businesses, individual professionals, corporations of every kind, and government entities. Kim will continue CJAC’s strong policy-making participation with the Judiciary as well as the Legislature and in furthering the Association’s important separate role in the political arena.”

Joe Manero, CJAC Board Chair, said: “Kim will hit the ground running as CJAC president,” Manero said. “She brings an in-depth knowledge of the organization, is well-respected in the Capitol, and has a keen understanding of the complex issues that matter to CJAC’s members. She will be a great leader for the Association.”

Prior to joining CJAC, Stone, 41, was Director of Development of The Adelante Foundation, a nonprofit micro credit organization in Honduras. She cofounded the organization with her husband, who grew up in the country before receiving a mechanical engineering degree at Stanford. She previously served as a deputy district attorney for San Mateo County and as special assistant to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California. As a prosecutor, engaged in over 25 jury trials and wrote and successfully argued an appeal before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Stone and her husband have two children.

A graduate of Stanford University School of Law, she received a Stanford undergraduate degree in American Studies. While at Stanford, she was a legislative advocate and legislative committee member for the California Alliance Against Domestic Violence.

Commenting on departing CJAC President Sullivan, Manero said, “John grew the organization into one of the premier advocacy groups in California. His tireless efforts to promote a fair civil justice system have served not just CJAC members but all Californians. Indeed, he has helped make CJAC a model for other civil justice reform groups around the country.”

SACRAMENTO - California was rated as the second-worst “Judicial Hellhole” in the country in a report released today by the national American Tort Reform Association (ATRA). Huge jury verdicts in Humboldt and Los Angeles counties were singled out in the report as evidence of courts “radically out of balance” against defendants in civil lawsuits.

California or one or more of its county court systems has been cited in one form or another every year since ATRA began compiling the rankings in 2002.

John H. Sullivan, president of the Civil Justice Association of California, said the independent report sheds light on a national perception of California’s legal climate, a perception that hurts the state when it badly needs to restore jobs and economic vitality.

“California has a litigation industry driven by plaintiffs’ lawyers who constantly push the envelope looking for more ways to sue more defendants,” he said. “In many of the lawsuits we’re seeing these days, no one was injured or lost money. The lawyers are using business and employment laws to make big claims - often with class action lawsuits - to try to leverage big settlements from their victims.

“With unemployment stubbornly above 12 percent, California policy-makers need to do everything they can to encourage businesses to stay here and grow here. Legal reforms would help.”

The ATRA report cites several court cases where damages are almost fanciful. In one, the class action lawyers claimed a brand of olive oil wasn’t extra virgin enough. In another, the iPad’s overheating shut-off protection device was grounds for saying that Apple Inc’s claim that “reading on the iPad is just like reading a book” amounted to fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive advertising, unfair business practices, breach of express or implied warranty, and intentional misrepresentation or unjust enrichment.

“In many of these cases, a normal consumer who didn’t like the way a product worked would simply take it back and get a refund,” Sullivan said. “Instead we see speculators trying to turn these episodes into fortune-building conflicts.”

In a different, “no-injury” case, jurors in Humboldt County rendered a staggering $677 million verdict against nursing homes where time records showed fewer staff members were on duty than state law required. No evidence was entered showing harm or inconvenience to any patient. Sullivan said that staffing and other requirements should certainly be enforced, but it’s not useful to take millions of dollars out of health care and give it to lawyers in a case where no one was harmed.

The full report and reports from previous years are available at www.judicialhellholes.org.

Better known as MICRA, the legislation has been a major success and has been emulated in other states. By capping “pain and suffering” damages at $250,000 - while allowing plaintiffs to receive damages covering their full economic and medical losses - the measure kept doctors in practice by bringing to a halt the skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance costs that were threatening to drive many doctors out of business.

In Stinnett v. Tam, a jury awarded the plaintiff $6 million to compensate her for the “loss of consortium” caused by the death of her husband in a medical malpractice case. But the court reduced the pain-and-suffering award to $250,000 - leaving her with a final judgment including economic losses of more than $1.6 million.

The plaintiff appealed the ruling, arguing that the conditions prompting MICRA’s enactment are now materially different than they were when once-and-future Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill, removing any present “rational basis” for MICRA’s treatment of medical malpractice plaintiffs as distinct from other personal injury plaintiffs. In addition, the plaintiff contends MICRA never achieved its purpose of restoring affordable medical liability insurance premiums, claiming that the credit instead belongs to the passage of Proposition 103, the insurance reform initiative passed in 1988. The trial lawyers’ association has filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff.

In the CJAC brief, General Counsel Fred Hiestand argues that the courts have repeatedly upheld MICRA and that any changes should be implemented by the Legislature, not the courts.

Hiestand further argues that the $250,000 lid on recoverable noneconomic damages satisfies equal protection because it is rationally related to MICRA’s purpose: to reduce the cost of medical malpractice litigation and to help make insurance premiums affordable. In addition, he documents how MICRA, not Prop. 103, is responsible for arresting the conditions that caused the medical malpractice crisis, citing studies by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the highly respected former state Legislative Analyst, William Hamm.

Should the court be tempted to declare the cap unconstitutional because it only applies to benefit health care providers, the brief argues that the better remedy (for which there is ample Supreme Court precedent) would be to instead extend it to all cases of negligence, not invalidate it.

The amicus brief was filed with the 5th District Court of Appeal. As with all of CJAC’s recent amicus briefs, the entire brief can be downloaded from the Appellate Center on the CJAC website.

The trial lawyers’ independent expenditure committee contributed the money - $75,000 on Monday and on Wednesday - to pay for radio ads supporting Jones and opposing his Republican opponent, Mike Villines.

That’s in addition to the $494,400 individual personal injury lawyers and other trial attorneys, their family members, law firms, and political action committees have given directly to Jones’s campaign through October 16, the end of the most recent reporting period.

“These lawyers don’t want the voters to smell their big money,” said CJAC President John H. Sullivan, noting that Jones’s campaign consultant told The Associated Press last week that perhaps a handful of attorneys had given money to Jones’s campaign when in fact trial lawyer contributions make up 13 percent of all the direct contributions he’s raised to date.

During the most recent reporting period, from October 1st to the 16th, trial lawyers gave Jones $44,800, according to a comprehensive CJAC analysis of campaign contribution data released by the Secretary of State’s Office.

Personal injury attorneys also gave $57,800 to Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for Attorney General, and $648,200 to Jerry Brown’s gubernatorial campaign during the first two weeks in October. During the entire election cycle, beginning in January 2009, plaintiffs’ lawyers gave Harris $225,800 (4 percent of her total) and Brown $1,693,600 (5 percent of his total).

Unlike most contribution tracking, CJAC reviews campaign records to calculate donations by individuals, not just political action committees.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform presented CJAC with its 2010 Award for Outstanding Alliance for the Association’s work in California.

Presented at the Institute’s annual Legal Reform Summit, the award is part of the Chamber’s program honoring individuals and organizations whose work has contributed to the efforts to make America’s civil justice system simpler, fairer, and faster for everyone.

CJAC was cited for its successful efforts to:

“It is a special honor for CJAC to be recognized by the U.S. Chamber, which is so powerfully engaged at this critical time in protecting our job-creating economy,” said Association President John H. Sullivan.

You can read the Institute for Legal Reform’s press release here.

SACRAMENTO - California’s plaintiffs’ lawyers have made electing Dave Jones as the state’s new Insurance Commissioner a top priority, the Civil Justice Association of California reported today.

On Tuesday, the trial lawyers’ independent expenditure committee contributed $75,000 to pay for radio ads supporting Jones, currently a Sacramento-area Assembly Member, and blasting his Republican opponent, Fresno-area Assembly Member Mike Villines.

That’s in addition to the $494,400 individual personal injury lawyers and other trial attorneys, their family members, law firms, and political action committees have given directly to Jones’s campaign through October 16, the end of the most recent reporting period.

“It’s ironic that Mr. Jones’ campaign consultant told The Associated Press last week that perhaps a handful of attorneys had given money to Jones’s campaign when in fact trial lawyer contributions make up 13 percent of all the money he’s raised to date,” said CJAC President John H. Sullivan.

During the most recent reporting period, from October 1st to the 16th, trial lawyers gave Jones $44,800.

Personal injury attorneys also gave generously to Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for Attorney General, and to Jerry Brown’s gubernatorial campaign during the first two weeks in October, giving Harris $57,800 and Brown $648,200.

In all, trial lawyers gave $773,400 to candidates and incumbents for statewide and legislative races important to them between October 1 and October 16, according to a comprehensive CJAC analysis of campaign contribution data released by the Secretary of State’s Office.

During the entire election cycle, beginning in January 2009, plaintiffs’ lawyers gave Harris $225,800 (4 percent of her total) and Brown $1,693,600 (5 percent of his total).

“As we predicted a few weeks ago, the trial lawyers really opened up their checkbooks during October, giving more in 16 days than they did in the previous three months to key candidates and incumbents,” Sullivan said.

“One can only assume that they timed their heaviest contributions to come late in the campaign where they perhaps would not be noticed, since past research shows that two out of every three voters prefer candidates not heavily supported by plaintiffs’ lawyers.”

Unlike most contribution tracking, which only looks at the trial lawyers’ political action committees and therefore drastically undercounts the dollars these lawyers give to candidates and incumbents, CJAC fully reviews state campaign records in order to calculate the significant money flowing through all the different channels plaintiffs’ lawyers use.

The CJAC analysis found that trial lawyers gave less than $20,000 to legislative candidates in competitive districts during the first two weeks of October. During the election cycle, they gave particularly heavily to two candidates: $221,300 to Betsy Butler, formerly the development director for the trial lawyers’ lobbying organization (28 percent of her total), and $133,500 to attorney Bob Wieckowski (25 percent of his total). Butler won the Democratic primary in a coastal Los Angeles County Assembly district, while Wieckowski is the Democratic nominee in a Fremont-area Assembly race.

During the reporting period, individual personal injury lawyers and other trial attorneys, their family members, law firms, and political action committees gave $686,500 to candidates for statewide office and another $39,800 to legislative incumbents and candidates for a total of $726,300, according to a Civil Justice Association of California analysis of data collected by the Secretary of State’s office.

By far the most trial lawyer money went to Jerry Brown, the Democrat running for Governor against Republican Meg Whitman. Brown received $391,500 from plaintiffs’ lawyers, while Whitman received $750. Since the current election cycle began on January 1, 2009, trial lawyers have given more than $1.1 million to Brown, about 3 percent of his total contributions from all sources.

The next largest recipient of trial lawyer cash was Dave Jones, the Democratic nominee for Insurance Commissioner. Jones received $177,700, while his Republican challenger, Mike Villines, received no contributions from personal injury attorneys. To date, plaintiffs’ lawyers have given Jones $448,900, which is 13 percent of the total he has raised.

Coming in third was Democratic Attorney General candidate Kamala Harris, who in the past three months received $81,200 from trial lawyers. In all, Harris has received $166,000 from trial lawyers, or 3 percent of her total. Her Republican opponent, Steve Cooley, received $34,300 from trial lawyers, bringing his total from personal injury lawyers to $64,000, or 2 percent of his total.

“These lawyers are among the largest contributors to political candidates in California,” noted CJAC President John H. Sullivan. “While political contributions are a legitimate part of our freedom to communicate and select government representatives, the public should be informed when a powerful special interest is conducting a massive program to elect representatives whom it believes will further its own narrow agenda.

“And if past elections are an indication of what’s to come, we can expect a flood of trial lawyer money in the last few weeks before the election.”

Sullivan noted that most contribution tracking only looks at plaintiff lawyer political action committees and therefore drastically undercounts the dollars these lawyers ship to candidates and incumbents. The Civil Justice Association, on the other hand, fully reviews state campaign records in order to calculate the significant money flowing through all the different channels plaintiffs’ lawyers use.

“For example, in 2006, the last time California elected statewide office holders, trial lawyer PACs contributed a little over $300,000. But money from individual plaintiffs’ lawyers, their law firms, and their family members totaled almost $3 million - 10 times as much.”

During the third quarter, plaintiffs’ lawyers made only modest contributions in the handful of competitive general election races for legislative districts. Among those receiving trial lawyer contributions were Democratic Assembly Member Joan Buchanan, who received $2,500 in her bid for re-election to an East Bay-Central Valley district seat, and Democrat Phu Nguyen, who picked up $2,000 in his bid to win an Orange County Assembly contest.

During the 2009-10 election cycle, three legislative candidates received $75,000 or more from trial lawyers:

- Opposition to Ballot Measure (Proposition 27) to Abolish Voter-Approved Citizens Redistricting Commission and Return Redistricting Power to the Legislature

The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) today announced support of Proposition 20, the November 2 ballot measure to expand the responsibility of the existing Citizen Redistricting Commission to include determining boundaries of congressional districts in the state.

The Association also announced opposition to Proposition 27, designed to overturn voters’ 2008 approval of the neutral Citizen Redistricting Commission - which is in the beginning stage of redrawing district lines for state Legislative elections in 2012.

“Making fair voter representation, not politician job protection, the goal of redistricting is fundamental to making California government operate responsibly and responsively to the people,” said John H. Sullivan, CJAC President. “The same political-party lock on seats that voters are already stopping in state legislative elections also exists in the California congressional delegation.”

Sullivan said Proposition 27 “could be one of the most blatant statements ever of the political priorities of some in public office - ‘protect our jobs above all else.’” Supporters of Proposition 27 want to retain the scheme that has let them draw lines to pick their voters, not give voters a fair choice of picking them.”

He said that a Proposition 20 victory and a Proposition 27 defeat will be major steps toward achieving the truly representative government critical to getting California back on track with jobs and economic stability.