WITNESSES HOSPITAL NEGLIGENCE
EXPERT
BOARD-CERTIFIED TESTIFYING EXPERTS
Hospital Administration Arthur Shorr, M.B.A., FACHE Daniel Herlinger, M.B.A., FACHE Norman Andrews, R.N., M.B.A., FACHE Tim Hawkins, M.B.A., FACHE
Psychiatric Facilities Gerald Sweet Ph.D Berlynn Ching, R.N.
Nursing Administration Bonnie Siler, R.N., M.A.
Nursing Homes, Assisted Living Julian Rich, M.B.A., FACHCA
· Community Standards · Patient Rights
· Physician Credentialing · Policies & Procedures · Nursing Negligence · Regulatory Compliance · Environment of Care · Patient Safety
· Bylaws & Governance · JCAHO Standards
Call for Courtesy Consultation
800.530.5728
A Subsidiary of Arthur S. Shorr & Associates, Inc.
American United also argued that
the jury’s punitive damages award was excessive. In upholding the award, the court evaluated the reprehensibility of American United’s conduct. It reasoned that the plaintiff presented evidence of “fraudulent claims practices potentially affecting numerous insureds other than the plaintiff.” The punitive damages award punished American United for engaging in a pattern and practice firmly grounded in established company policy that had the potential of defrauding numerous insureds other than the plain- tiff. The court noted: The jury could conclude that defen-
dant consciously pursued a practice or policy of cheating insureds out of bene- fits by obtaining incorrect opinions of total disability from treating physicians.
(Moore v. American United Life Insurance Company, supra, 150 Cal.App.3d at p. 640 [197 Cal.Rptr. at 897].) In Mock v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins.
Co. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306 [5 Cal.Rptr.2d 594], the court emphasized that pattern-and-practice evidence can be crucial to establishing punitive damages against an insurer. The court surveyed cases affirming an award of punitive dam- ages against an insurer and noted that an established pattern and practice of bad- faith was a common element. Specifically, the court explained: [A] central theme common to those cases which have sustained punitive
awards is the existence of established poli- cies or practices in claims handling which are harmful to insureds. (See. e.g., Moore v. American United Life Ins. Co. (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 610, 637 [197 Cal.Rptr. 878] [insurer had a practice ‘firmly grounded in established compa- ny policy’ of intentionally supplying physicians with the wrong definition of total disability]; Downey Savings & Loan Ass’n. v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1098-1099 [234 Cal.Rptr. 835] [insurer was guilty of company-wide misconduct by instruct- ing its claims adjusters to focus on ways to defeat claims]; Hughes v. Blue Cross of Northern California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 832, 847 [263 Cal.Rptr. 850] [insurer’s objectionable claims han- dling practices were rooted in established company practice]; Liberty Transport Inc. v. Harry W. Gorst Co. supra, 229 Cal.App.3d 417, 436-437 [280 Cal.Rtpr. 159] [insurer had a company policy of never communicating directly with their insureds and despite knowledge of insured’s ignorance of decision to deny claim did nothing to correct the error].) In Patrick v. Maryland Casualty Co., supra., the court seemed to suggest that what was required was a ‘consistent and unremedied pattern of egregious insurer practices.’
(217 Cal.App.3d at 1576 [267 Cal.Rptr. 24.]) (Emphasis in text.)
See Evidence, Page 32
DARRYL H. GRAVER, ESQ. EXPERIENCED
ARBITRATOR/MEDIATOR “Have Gavel Will Travel”
www.HospitalExperts.com 30— The Advocate Magazine JUNE 2011
Over 3,000 successful conclusions TM
To Schedule, call Judicate West 800.488.8805
818.884.8474 fax 818.884.8388
Evidence — continued from Page 28
PLAINTIFF...
...OR DEFENSE
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96