Attorney Search
Advocacy at a Higher Level

Horvitz & Levy is a solutions-based firm focused on appellate success. We are distinguished by our commitment to responsive service and on-going innovation in the areas of civil appellate litigation, amicus curiae support, and trial strategy consultation.

Our firm history, honors and awards, and locations speak to our collaborative approach and commitment to serving clients as well as the outstanding legal resources we bring to bear.


View Opinion View Opinion

Horvitz & Levy represented defendant Dwight Eric Lampkin on appeal in responding to the Court of Appeal’s request for supplemental briefing on two separate topics, one concerning the admissibility of medical damage evidence and the other about attorney fees. In a unanimous published decision, the Court of Appeal accepted our arguments on both issues. First, the court decided an issue left open in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541. The Howell court had held that when the medical provider has accepted less than a billed amount as full payment, evidence of the so-called “full billed amount” is not relevant on the issue of past medical expenses. However, the Howell court did not decide whether that evidence might be relevant on other issues, such as noneconomic damages or future medical expenses. The Corenbaum Court of Appeal decided this open issue and held the “full billed amount” is irrelevant on these issues as well. Because the trial court had admitted such evidence, the Court of Appeal reversed the damages awards totaling over $3 million and remanded for a new trial on compensatory damages.

The Court of Appeal also addressed the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.4. That section authorizes awards of attorney fees in tort actions for injuries “based upon” the felony offense for which the defendant has been convicted. The court agreed with our argument that the conduct giving rise to defendant’s felony was fleeing the scene of the accident without providing the required information or rendering assistance, rather than causing or being in the accident itself. As a result, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees because the tort action was not based on the felony offense for which defendant was convicted.