• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Wagner Legal Group, P.C.

Wagner Legal Group, P.C.

  • ABOUT
    • ATTORNEYS
      • MARK H. WAGNER
      • OUTSIDE CO-COUNSEL
    • AREAS WE SERVE
    • ARTICLES
    • RESOURCES
    • RESULTS
    • CLIENT REVIEWS
    • VIDEOS
  • EMPLOYMENT
    • DISCRIMINATION
      • AGE DISCRIMINATION
      • DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
      • GENDER/SEX DISCRIMINATION
      • PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION
      • RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION
      • RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
    • EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS AND SEVERANCE REVIEW
    • HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
    • NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS
    • RETALIATION/
      WHISTLEBLOWER
    • SEXUAL HARASSMENT
    • UNEMPLOYMENT
    • WAGE/HOUR
    • WRONGFUL TERMINATION
  • OTHER PRACTICE AREAS
    • BUSINESS LITIGATION/BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS
    • PERSONAL INJURY
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT US

Blog

Court Holds That $250,000 Statutory Cap On Non-Economic Damages Is Constitutional

Court Holds That $250,000 Statutory Cap On Non-Economic Damages Is Constitutional

September 5, 2011 by Mark H. Wagner

In Stinnett v. Tam, the California Court of Appeals held that that Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act’s $250,000 cap on non-economic damages was constitutional. Holly Stinnett sued, among others, Tony Tam, M.D. and Modesto Surgical Associates, for the wrongful death of her husband due to professional negligence. The jury awarded $6,000,000 in non-economic damages to Stinnett. The trial court, applying California Civil Code section 3333.2 reduced the damages to $250,000. Stinnett appealed, arguing that the reduction of her non-economic damages constituted: (1) a violation of her right to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by article I, section 7, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution; and (2) a violation of her right to a jury trial under article I, section 16 of the California Constitution. The Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, rejected her claims and affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Opponents of the ruling hope that the California Supreme Court will reverse the ruling, or that that California Legislature will repeal or amend the statute, which many considered outdated.

For more information, or if you need legal assistance, please contact the Wagner Legal Group, P.C. at (310) 857-5293 or fill out our contact form on the website.

Litigation,  Personal Injury

Primary Sidebar

(310) 857-5293

Free Consultation

SCHEDULE

Practice Areas

  • EMPLOYMENT
    • DISCRIMINATION
      • AGE DISCRIMINATION
      • DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
      • Gender/Sex Discrimination
      • Pregnancy Discrimination
      • Race/National Origin Discrimination
      • Religious Discrimination
    • EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS AND SEVERANCE REVIEW
    • HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
    • NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS
    • RETALIATION/WHISTLEBLOWER
    • SEXUAL HARASSMENT
    • UNEMPLOYMENT
    • WAGE/HOUR
    • WRONGFUL TERMINATION
  • OTHER PRACTICE AREAS
    • BUSINESS LITIGATION/BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS
    • PERSONAL INJURY

ARRANGE A FREE CONSULTATION

consult

Footer

  • HOME
  • ABOUT
  • EMPLOYMENT LAW
  • OTHER PRACTICE AREAS
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT
(310) 857-5293

2601 Ocean Park Blvd, Suite 208, Santa Monica, CA 90405

Wagner Legal Group P.C.

Copyright © 2025 · Business Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

© 2023 WAGNER LEGAL GROUP, P.C. | Legal Disclaimer ● Privacy Policy ● Sitemap