Due diligence acquisition checklist

 

Plaintiff patient challenged the order of the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California), which reduced the jury's award of damages in his suit alleging medical malpractice by defendant health care provider when its employees initially diagnosed plaintiff's heart attack as muscle spasm.

Plaintiff patient suffered chest pains and was treated by employees of defendant health care provider for muscle spasms. A later examination showed that plaintiff had suffered a heart attack. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging malpractice. The jury found in favor of plaintiff and entered special findings on the amount of damages. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3333.1, 3333.2, the trial court reduced the award of damages for noneconomic losses from by half and reduced the award for lost wages to the time of trial by collateral source disability payments. The trial Due diligence acquisition checklist further ordered that defendant pay future medical expenses not covered by medical insurance provided by plaintiff's employer. Plaintiff appealed. The court held that the statute requiring remittitur was constitutional, and that the damages were proper, but reversed the judgment, holding that defendant was denied the right to a jury panel which was constitutionally selected because the trial court dismissed all potential jurors who received medical care from defendant. The court held that the error of faulty jury instructions was harmless.

The trial court's order that reduced the amount of damages awarded to plaintiff patient was reversed because, although statute requiring reduction of damages was constitutional, the trial court committed reversible error when it impermissibly excused from jury duty, over objection, all prospective jurors who were members of the health plan serviced by the hospital that provided plaintiff patient the allegedly negligent care.

Appellant construction company sought review of an order of the Contra Costa County Superior Court (California), which denied appellant's petition for a writ of mandate or prohibition to prevent respondent city from contracting with the low bidder on a road construction project.

Appellant was the second lowest bidder on a contract for a road construction project. After appellant discovered that the low bidder had deviated from contract specifications restricting subcontracted work to 50 percent, appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandate or prohibition to prevent respondent city from contracting with the low bidder. The trial court denied the petition. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the low bidder's 5.5 percent deviation from the contract specification regarding subcontracted work was inconsequential because it did not give the bidder an unfair competitive advantage nor otherwise defeat the goals of insuring economy and preventing corruption in the public contract process. The court defined a variance as "inconsequential" when it could not have affected the amount of the bid or given a bidder an advantage or benefit not allowed other bidders.

The court affirmed the trial court's order, which denied appellant construction company's petition for a writ of mandamus to prevent respondent city from contracting with the low bidder on a government project. The court held that the low bidder's slight deviation from respondent's contract specifications regarding subcontracted work was inconsequential and did not warrant a cancellation of the public contract.