Employment Law – How did Ani Chopourian get a $168 million dollar verdict?

Sacramento physician assistant Ani Chopourian made recent headlines with her $168 million verdict against Mercy General Hospital for unlawful retaliation, harassment, and rest/meal break violations. This may be the biggest verdict ever for a victim of workplace harassment.

The $168 million verdict consists of $42.7 million for lost wages and for emotional distress and $125 million in punitive damages. The verdict is being appealed, and it will not be surprising if the verdict is substantially reduced or if Chopourian settles in order to receive money now instead of waiting for what could be a lengthy appeals process.

Depending on what wrongdoing an employer commits, an employee may be entitled to recover lost wages since the wrongdoing (known as “back pay”) and perhaps as long as it takes to find comparable employment if reinstatement is not feasible (known as “front pay”), emotional distress, attorney fees, prejudgment interest, and punitive damages.

The amount of punitive damages that can be awarded depends on the nature of defendant’s conduct; the amount necessary to have a deterrent effect on the defendant (so a larger award is appropriate against a more wealthy company or individual); and the amount must bear a reasonable relation to the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

The $42.7 million in lost wages and emotional distress is believed to consist of about $3.5 million in lost wages and about $39 million in emotional distress. The lost wages would include a substantial amount for front pay, so the jury must have believed Chopourian was distressed enough to be unable to find comparable employment for a while.

There are no standards for calculating emotional distress. Given the severity of Chopourian’s claims against Mercy General Hospital as noted in the above Los Angeles Times article, a 7 figure emotional distress award is not out of the question but $39 million does appear excessive.

Often times the ratio of punitive damages to damage awards is considered in determining whether a punitive damage award is proper, and a 3 to 1 ratio ($125 million to $42.7 million) is usually thought of as reasonable. However, if the damage award is reduced, that would justify a punitive damage reduction. In addition, it is our understanding $125 million is nearly as high as Mercy General Hospital’s total profit, so an appeals court is likely to reduce the punitive damage award as a lower award would probably be considered enough to be a proper deterrent against this type of conduct happening again.

Personal Injury Law - Wrongful Death - AEG Live dismissed from Joe Jackson's lawsuit for wrongful death of Michael Jackson

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge recently dismissed concert promoter AEG Live from a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Joe Jackson, Michael Jackson's father, seeking damages for the death of Michael Jackson.

The court's ruling was based on procedural grounds as Michael Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson (from whom Joe Jackson is separated), already has a pending wrongful death lawsuit and the law does not favor multiple lawsuits on the same grounds: this legal principle is called the one-action rule.

This case is a good opportunity to review who is entitled to sue for wrongful death in California. The dead person’s surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, issue of deceased children, dependent stepchildren (and dependent minors residing in the household for at least six months), dependent "putative spouses" and their children, and dependent parents can sue for wrongful death. If there are none of these types of relatives/persons, then whoever is entitled to intestate succession may be a proper wrongful death Plaintiff.

It is not clear whether Joe Jackson was dependent on Michael Jackson at the time of Michael Jackson's death: Joe Jackson was not close to Michael Jackson and was not named in Michael Jackson's will. If Joe Jackson cannot prove that he was not financially dependent on Michael Jackson for necessary living expenses such as rent or food, then he probably won't be able to join Katherine Jackson's lawsuit.

Personal Injury Law - Devin Petelski case shows importance of automobile on-board computers

On October 15, 2009, Devin Petelski died in a motor vehicle accident when her vehicle was struck by an LAPD car that was responding to a call. This recent Los Angeles Times article on the accident highlights the increasing importance on data from the on-board computer that are in most recently-manufactured cars and trucks. The LAPD officers reported they were traveling 40-45 mph and LAPD accident reconstruction experts estimated the LAPD vehicle was traveling about 50 mph.  However, data recovered from the LAPD vehicle's computer indicated the LAPD vehicle was traveling as fast as 78 mph.  The case settled soon after this data came to light.

In the pre-vehicle computer days, determining fault from an accident was largely based on testimony from the drivers and witnesses and on analysis from accident reconstruction experts.  As this case shows, determining liability in a motor vehicle accident has been an inexact science as witnesses are often unreliable and experts' analysis are based on assumptions that may or may not be true. On-board computers are changing that and it is now a factor in every significant crash.