Ojeda

Ojeda v. Sharp Cabrillo Hospital

Good Law
10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 230·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 905·8 Cal. App. 4th 1·92 Daily Journal DAR 9972·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6340
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 16, 1992D012726California10,351 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiener, J.

As modem litigation becomes increasingly complex, lawyers are routinely called upon to obtain, understand and utilize specialized expertise in order to effectively evaluate and litigate cases. When lawyers do not possess the expertise themselves, they must seek out others for assistance.

This appeal concerns how such expert assistance may properly be compensated. Can a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case validly contract with a medical-legal consulting service to assist the plaintiff’s attorney where the consideration for these services is a contingent fee calculated as a percentage of the plaintiff’s ultimate recovery? In the context of reviewing the compromise of a minor plaintiff’s claim, the trial court concluded such a contract is automatically invalid. We disagree. As we shall explain, however, California’s statutory limitations on attorney fees in medical malpractice cases requires that the plaintiff’s arrangement with both the consulting service and the lawyers be closely scrutinized to ensure that the consulting contract does not subvert the legislative scheme. We accordingly reverse the superior court’s order disapproving the contract and remand for further…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.