As the debate regarding what has come to be known as a Hanif / Nishihama reduction continues, and as we all wait for the California Supreme Court to rule in Howell, things get a little more clear with King v. Willmett.
To make a long story short, and for those of you who don’t know, plaintiff Michael King was an insurance defense attorney who seriously hurt his back (C-6-7) in a rear-end collision (sound familiar). He got the usual treatment from the defendant’s insurance company and ended up in trial, which he won (now does it sound familiar).
But after the verdict the trial judge entertained a motion to reduce the past medical damages awarded to what was actually paid by Mr. King’s health insurance company. And then did just that – reduced the past medical award.
Thus, the issue on appeal was whether “…in a negligence action against a nonpublic defendant, the reduction of a plaintiff’s award for past medical expense damages to the dollar amount ultimately paid by the plaintiff’s private health insurance to his health care providers is appropriate under the collateral source rule.”
And to get right to the point – soon to be Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Justice Cantil-Sakauye of the Third Appellate District, ruled that the reduction was not proper under the collateral source rule.
Justice Cantil-Sakauye made very clear in her opinion, in essence, that if the collateral source rule should confer a benefit on either tortfeasors or injury victims, for public policy considerations it would be best for everyone if we side with the injury victim in this case. And that, actually makes perfect sense.
The dissent made no attempt whatsoever to rectify the application of Hanif in a non-public defendant setting with the collateral source rule or the public policy behind it. It simply sought to carve out yet another exception to the rule despite no legislative, legal, or public policy support for such an exception.
Fortunately, common sense and sound policy prevailed in King. Let’s hope the Supreme Court’s decision in Howell is just as sound.
The Court’s opinion can be found here.
Google Discrimination Case Moves Forward
Saturday, August 7th, 2010The plaintiff’s case is against Google and involves allegations by the employee that he was fired in 2004 because of his age; he was 54 years old at that time. The case also involves allegations and Silicon Valley water cooler talk that the culture at Google, like many Valley companies, is youth oriented and not appreciative of older workers.
The legal issues before the California Supreme Court centered around a concept in employment law known as the “stray remarks” doctrine.
In essence, “stray remarks” works like this: if someone makes an offensive comment, indicative of discrimination, but that someone is not involved in the decision-making process that led to the adverse employment action, then the comment is simply a “stray remark.” Thus, it amounts to little evidence of discrimination.
Often a company or employer can use this doctrine to get rid of a discrimination case on summary judgment. But after the Court’s ruling it will be harder for employers to use this legal doctrine to that effect.
The California Supreme Court stated in its unanimous opinion, “Strict application of the stray remarks doctrine, as urged by Google, would result in a court‘s categorical exclusion of evidence even if the evidence was relevant[.]”
“An age-based remark not made directly in the context of an employment decision or uttered by a non-decision-maker may be relevant, circumstantial evidence of discrimination.”
As quoted by the Journal, Morrison & Foerster partner Dan Westman referred to the California Court’s decision as a “very significant victory for employees.”
The case is Reid v. Google, S158965.
Tags: San Francisco Personal Injury Attorney Comments On Google Discrimination Case.
Posted in Legal Update | No Comments »