January 31, 2025

Ng v. Superior Court of Orange County (Jan. 29, 2025, G064257) [2025 WL 323098]

Under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), as amended, noneconomic damages in an action for medical negligence are limited to $350,000 (Civ. Code, § 3333.2) and noneconomic damages in an action for wrongful death are limited to $500,000 collectively (id., § 3333.2, subd. (c)). Where a decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest brings a survival action for medical negligence, noneconomic damages, which are ordinarily not recoverable in survival actions, may be recovered if the survival action was granted a preference or filed after a specified date.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.34, subd. (b).) 

Plaintiff’s husband died at Los Alamitos Medical Center after doctors placed his feeding tube incorrectly.  Plaintiff sued the doctors and the Medical Center for wrongful death and brought a survival action for medical malpractice as her husband’s successor in interest.  For both claims, plaintiff sought economic damages and noneconomic damages.  The Medical Center conceded that plaintiff could recover noneconomic damages for both claims, but objected to her recovering under two separate damages caps, instead of one.  The trial court agreed, explaining “that because ‘the wrongful death claim is not separate and distinct from a medical negligence claim, it cannot be . . . subject to a separate MICRA cap.’ ” 

Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandate, which the Court of Appeal granted to decide “whether the recent amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34, which authorizes a decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest to recover noneconomic damages, means a plaintiff can seek two MICRA cap awards (one for himself or herself and one for the decedent) under Civil Code section 3333.2.”

The Court of Appeal held that, under amended Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34, a plaintiff who brings a wrongful death action and a survival action based on the same incident can recover under two MICRA caps.  As the Court of Appeal explained, the two claims are “separate and distinct” and suffered by two distinct plaintiffs.  The survival claim is for damages suffered by the decedent; the claim “ ‘belonged to the decedent before death but, by statute, survives that event.’ ”  The wrongful death claim, by contrast, is for damages suffered by the heirs of the decedent, as a result of his death.  Since the claims are for distinct injuries suffered by distinct parties, they are not subject to a single damages cap.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of mandate, and ordered the trial court to vacate its earlier order and issue a new order denying the motion to strike.