Padilla v. Greater El Monte Community Hospital

[669]

Opinion

RUBIN, J.

Attorney Neil M. Howard appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to recompute the jury’s present value calculation of his client’s medical malpractice award almost two years after the court entered its final judgment. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Medical malpractice by Maria Padilla’s doctor left her in a permanently vegetative state. Attorney Neil Howard filed a malpractice lawsuit on Padilla’s behalf. Howard tried the case to a jury and in January 2001 the jury rendered a special verdict for Padilla compensating her for past and future damages. For her future medical expenses, the jury awarded Padilla 12 annual payments, which started at $250,000 the first year and increased by 6 percent every year thereafter. The jury calculated the present value of the future medical expenses as $2,095,000. In reaching that value, the jury appears to have mistakenly used a chart that calculated the present value for a stream of constant payments, not, as here, a series of rising payments.

1

In February 2001, the court entered judgment for Padilla. It awarded her more than $1.2 million for past damages. The court also awarded Padilla her future medical expenses as determined by the jury and, relevant to this appeal, adopted the jury’s calculation of the present value of those future payments. No one appealed from the court’s final judgment.

In June 2002, the probate court overseeing Padilla’s estate appointed respondent Pam Muir as Padilla’s conservator. Conservator Muir concluded Howard had taken more in legal fees from Padilla’s judgment than the statutory formula in the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act allowed. She asked Howard to return the excess fees. In response, in October 2002, Howard filed with the trial court that had heard the malpractice case a motion asking the court to calculate the total value of the malpractice award from which he could draw his fees. In determining the value of the award, Howard asked the court to ignore the jury’s calculation of the present value of Padilla’s future medical payments and instead use a present value calculation Howard tendered in his motion.