A client is injured in a car crash. They undergo treatment. A hospital provides what appears to be substandard care. Or a lien-based pain management doctor causes a new injury during an injection. The client is understandably upset.
One of the biggest strategic mistakes we see is a plaintiff’s lawyer trying to proceed with a medical malpractice action involving a bad medical outcome during a pending personal injury case. Our firm receives these referrals on a regular basis. By pursuing what appears to be a viable medical malpractice claim, plaintiff’s counsel may inadvertently reduce the value of an otherwise excellent personal injury case.
In short, a poorly conceived medical malpractice claim can do more harm than good. Once medical negligence becomes even arguably colorable, counsel must consider whether pursuing the claim is worth exposing the client’s noneconomic damages to the significant limitations imposed by MICRA and Proposition 51.
I. Henry v. Superior Court Allows Defendants to Put Negligent Medical Providers on the Verdict Form
We all learned in law school that the original tortfeasor is liable not only for the injuries it directly caused, but also for any additional harm resulting from medical treatment reasonably necessitated by those injuries, even if that treatment was negligently performed. CACI No. 3929 expressly embodies this rule, instructing the jury that the original defendant remains legally responsible for any additional harm caused by negligent medical care required by the plaintiff’s injury.
Many plaintiff lawyers mistakenly believe this principle insulates the client from any downside in pursuing a medical malpractice claim. It does not.
The problem is that while the original tortfeasor remains liable for the additional harm, it is still entitled to have the jury allocate fault to the negligent medical provider. Once that happens, MICRA and Proposition 51 come into play. Depending on the circumstances, a significant portion of the plaintiff’s noneconomic damages may become subject to MICRA’s damages cap, while the original tortfeasor is responsible for only its proportionate share of noneconomic damages under Proposition 51. The result can be a dramatic reduction in the client’s overall recovery, even though the original defendant remains legally responsible for the enhanced injury.
The first case to recognize this interplay was Marina Emergency Medical Group v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 435. There, a patient sued an emergency room physician for negligently treating a thumb laceration. The physician contended that the patient’s subsequent treating physician negligently aggravated the injury. Although the subsequent physician had been voluntarily dismissed from the lawsuit, the trial court barred the emergency room physician from introducing evidence of the subsequent physician’s negligence. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Proposition 51 entitled the emergency room physician to present evidence of the subsequent physician’s comparative fault so the jury could allocate responsibility between them. The court explained that while the original physician remained jointly liable for all economic damages, he was only severally liable for his proportionate share of the plaintiff’s noneconomic damages.
Eight years later, in Henry v. Superior Court (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 440, the Second District expanded Marina beyond the medical malpractice context and applied the same rule to an ordinary personal injury case. There, a pool cleaner tripped over an unmarked and unlit concrete step at a homeowner’s residence, injuring his shoulder. He was transported to Kaiser, where he underwent treatment and later multiple shoulder surgeries. In their answer, the homeowners alleged that third party medical negligence contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries.
The homeowners argued that the plaintiff’s shoulder injury was relatively minor when he fell, but that Kaiser physicians significantly worsened it by fracturing his shoulder in four places during an attempted reduction, ultimately requiring multiple surgeries. They sought to introduce evidence of Kaiser’s alleged malpractice so the jury could allocate comparative fault and limit the homeowners’ responsibility for noneconomic damages to their own percentage of fault under Proposition 51.
The trial court refused to admit the evidence, finding that injecting a medical malpractice component into the case would unnecessarily expand the scope of the trial. The court further concluded that, regardless of any alleged medical negligence, the homeowners could still be held responsible for the injuries resulting from their own negligence.
On a writ petition, the Second District of the Court of Appeal reversed. The Court first explained that in 1986, Proposition 51 (Code of Civil Procedure section 1431.2) changed California’s common law rule of joint and several liability, but only for noneconomic damages. Before Proposition 51, any negligent defendant is responsible for the plaintiff’s entire damages, even if another tortfeasor was primarily at fault or insolvent.
Proposition 51 modified this rule by making each defendant responsible for only its own percentage of fault for noneconomic damages while economic damages remain subject to joint and several liability. The court first confirmed that the original tortfeasor does not escape responsibility merely because the plaintiff’s condition was later worsened by a doctor. The original tortfeasor’s conduct created the need for treatment. The treatment was a normal and foreseeable consequence of the original injury. Accordingly, the original negligence remains a legal cause of the harm produced during that treatment, even where the medical provider was independently negligent. (Id. at p. 449.)
However, under Prop 51, the worsened injury must be “properly apportioned between the [defendants] and the Kaiser physicians in accordance with the rules of comparative fault.” The court held that the homeowners were entitled to present evidence of Kaiser’s alleged malpractice, even though Kaiser was not a party to the lawsuit. If the jury found that the Kaiser physicians negligently aggravated the plaintiff’s injuries, it could assign a percentage of comparative fault to Kaiser. The homeowners would remain jointly liable for all economic damages, but their liability for noneconomic damages would be limited to their own percentage of fault under Proposition 51.
II. Even a Strong Med Mal Case Can Reduce Your Client’s Overall Recovery
Consider the following factual scenario, one our firm sees several times each year. A middle-aged client suffers what initially appears to be a relatively moderate leg injury in a motor vehicle collision. Liability is clear and collectability is not a concern because the defendant is either a public entity or a well insured corporate defendant. The client has diabetes and underlying peripheral vascular disease. At the hospital, providers fail to timely recognize or treat a developing deep vein thrombosis, vascular compromise, compartment syndrome, or sepsis. What began as an injury that likely would have healed instead spirals into a cascade of complications, ultimately resulting in a below the knee amputation.
Despite the severity of the amputation, the client makes a relatively good functional recovery. He is fitted with a prosthesis, returns to his desk job, and requires only modest future medical care. As a result, the case is driven primarily by noneconomic damages rather than future economic loss. You retain a life care planner and economist, who estimate approximately $2 million in future economic damages. Given the catastrophic nature of the amputation, however, you believe the case has a realistic trial value of at least $12 million. Believing the hospital’s negligence substantially contributed to the outcome, you add a medical malpractice claim against the hospital.
Assume the jury awards the full $12 million and allocates fault equally between the original tortfeasor and the hospital, finding each 50 percent responsible.
The original tortfeasor and the hospital remain jointly and severally liable for the $2 million in economic damages. However, under Proposition 51, the original tortfeasor is liable for only its 50 percent share of the noneconomic damages. Assuming the remaining $10 million represents noneconomic damages, the original tortfeasor’s liability is limited to $5 million.
The hospital’s liability is even more problematic. Because it is a health care provider, its exposure for noneconomic damages is capped by MICRA. In 2026, that cap is less than $500,000. Thus, despite obtaining a $12 million verdict, your client’s practical recovery has been reduced to less than $7.5 million.
The result becomes even worse if the subsequently negligent provider is an individual physician rather than a hospital. Many physicians and physician groups carry only $1 million in liability insurance. Even if you recover the physician’s policy limits before trial, the recent decision in Snover v. Gupta (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 111 substantially diminishes the benefit of that settlement. Under Snover, settlement offsets involving health care providers are first applied against the provider’s MICRA limited noneconomic liability before reducing economic damages. In the example above, more than 80 percent of a $1 million physician settlement, approximately $800,000, could ultimately reduce the recovery against the original tortfeasor, leaving the plaintiff with far less additional compensation than many practitioners would expect.
And in the event you settle the case with the subsequent provider, by alleging medical malpractice, you have also created a massive empty chair at trial. The original tortfeasor now has every incentive to embrace your allegations against the medical providers, argue that the hospital or physicians caused the catastrophic outcome, and minimize the significance of the original injury. Every criticism of the medical care that you developed through discovery and expert testimony becomes ammunition for the defense. At the same time, the medical providers’ attorneys will conduct their own discovery, retain their own experts, and often uncover additional impeachment evidence, preexisting conditions, comparative fault arguments, or other weaknesses that the original defendant may also use against your client.
In short, you have not simply added another defendant. You have added another well-funded defense team whose work product can ultimately benefit the original tortfeasor.
Lastly, medical malpractice defense lawyers are, as a general rule, among the most experienced trial lawyers in civil litigation. They typically try far more jury cases than the average personal injury defense attorney, are exceptionally well versed in medicine, and aggressively challenge every aspect of a plaintiff’s case. They routinely retain multiple experts, scrutinize life care plans and economic damages, explore every preexisting condition and alternative cause, and thoroughly investigate the plaintiff’s medical history. By adding a medical malpractice claim, you have not only created another empty chair for the original defendant to point to, but you have also invited a sophisticated and well-funded defense team to develop evidence and arguments that can ultimately benefit the original tortfeasor. In many cases, those efforts can substantially complicate the litigation and make proving the value of the underlying personal injury case significantly more difficult.
This problem is particularly acute when the plaintiff’s current or former attorney referred the client to the very lien provider who allegedly committed the malpractice. That scenario creates an entirely different set of strategic problems. The original tortfeasor can argue that the plaintiff’s own attorney selected the provider whose negligent care allegedly caused the catastrophic outcome, effectively shifting blame not only to the medical provider, but also to the plaintiff’s litigation decisions. Even if those arguments ultimately lack legal significance, they can create unfavorable optics before a jury and distract from the original tortfeasor’s own negligence.
III. Don’t Build the Defense’s Medical Malpractice Case
If the plaintiff refrains from filing a medical malpractice lawsuit or otherwise accusing the treating providers of negligence, it is often very difficult for the defendant to successfully shift fault to those providers. Unlike plaintiff medical malpractice attorneys, most personal injury defense lawyers have little experience litigating medical negligence claims. They generally do not know what specialty of expert is required, how to establish the applicable standard of care, how to prove a breach of that standard, or how to establish that the alleged negligence caused additional injury. In effect, to place a subsequent medical provider on the verdict form, the defendant must step into the shoes of a plaintiff medical malpractice lawyer and prove a viable medical malpractice case against a nonparty. That is no easy task.
Of course, a physician “is not necessarily negligent just because his efforts are unsuccessful or he makes an error that was reasonable under the circumstances.” (CACI 505; see also Sim v. Weeks (1935) 7 Cal.App.2d 28 [“[A] physician cannot be held liable for mere errors of judgment or for erroneous conclusions on matters of opinion.”]; Fraijo v. Hartland Hospital (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 331, 343 [“[A]n error in medical judgment is not considered in a vacuum but must be weighed in terms of the professional standard of care.”].)
Thus, to be able to include a medical provider on the verdict form, “there must be substantial evidence that a nonparty is at fault before damages can be apportioned to that nonparty.” (Scott v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 763, 785 [emphasis added].) Moreover, “[a]pportionment of noneconomic damages is a form of equitable indemnity in which a defendant may reduce its obligation to pay damages by establishing others are also at fault for the plaintiff’s injuries. Accordingly, the burden is on the defendant to prove fault as to those nonparty tortfeasors.” (Ibid.)
Wilson v. Ritto (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 361 illustrates the point. After a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant contended on appeal that the “trial court erred in denying her motion to include on the special verdict form [a subsequent surgeon] as a joint tortfeasor for purposes of apportioning liability for noneconomic damages.” (Ibid.)
After both sides rested, the trial court refused to add a surgeon to the special verdict form. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal affirmed. (Ibid.) It was undisputed that there was evidence that the surgeon contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. (Ibid.) However, as the Court of Appeal explained:
In determining a defendant’s share of fault, the court may consider other joint tortfeasors’ degree of fault for the plaintiff’s injuries and reduce the defendant’s share accordingly. A defendant may attempt to reduce his or her share of liability for noneconomic damages by seeking to add nonparty joint tortfeasors. But unless there is substantial evidence that an individual is at fault, there can be no apportionment of damages to that individual.
(Id. at p. 368 [emphasis added].)
The Court disagreed with the defendant’s contention that “all is required is a showing of contribution.” Instead, as the Court explained, Proposition 51 (Civ. Code, § 1431.2) requires “fault.” Therefore, the Court held that there must be “wrongdoing or culpability.” (Ibid.) Moreover, “[a]nd wrongdoing or culpability in the context of medical treatment is measured by the standard of care within the medical community.” (Ibid.) In other words, apportionment of fault “requires evidence of medical malpractice, not only as to named defendants, but also as to nonparty doctors.” (Id. at p. 369.)
The jury instructions themselves show that there must be fault or negligence to be able to apportion liability to a nonparty. (See CACI 406; see also Allphin v. Peter K. Fitness, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2015) 78 F.Supp.3d 987, 993 [relying on Wilson and granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication as to the affirmative defense of the fault of treating physicians due to the defendant’s “failure to set forth sufficient evidence to support that claim for medical malpractice against [the] plaintiff’s treating physicians.”].)
And this is true not only for standard-of-care, but causation. Even if there had been evidence that a non-party had acted below the standard of care, the defendant has the burden of showing that that negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm.
In Chakalis v. Elevator Solutions, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1557, 1566, the plaintiff sued after an elevator failed and she fell six floors, suffering serious injuries. As part of her hospitalization, a toxicologist nonsensically diagnosed the plaintiff with hydraulic oil poisoning and ordered detoxification treatment and prescribed Vicodin and Provigil. (Ibid.) Following her hospitalization, the plaintiff suffered from acute liver failure due to acetaminophen toxicity. Expert testimony critical of the treating toxicologist opined that all tests showed insignificant amounts of mercury or arsenic in the plaintiff’s system. (Id. at p. 1567.) The expert opined that the entire detoxification program was unnecessary and the prescription of Provigil was unnecessarily dangerous. (Ibid.) However, the expert did not provide any opinions that any of the improper treatment by the toxicologist caused any of the plaintiff’s harm. (Ibid.)
During deliberations, the jury asked the court if they were allowed to assign a percentage of responsibility to a person not listed as a defendant in the case. (Ibid.) The court allowed the jury to do so. (Ibid.) The jury awarded nearly $800,000 in damages but handwrote the toxicologist’s name on the verdict form and assigned him as 52% at fault. (Id. at p. 1568.) The trial court entered the verdict consistent with the form and assignment of fault. (Ibid.)
The Court of Appeal reversed, finding it was error to allow the jury to include the toxicologist on the verdict form. (Id. at pp. 1560-1561.) As the appellate court explained:
When a defendant in a personal injury action contends that a nonparty physician’s treatment of the plaintiff caused part or all of the plaintiff’s injuries, can the trier of fact find the physician comparatively at fault without evidence that the physician’s medical malpractice caused the plaintiff’s injuries? We conclude the trier of fact cannot make such a finding. In order to prevail on a defense of comparative negligence by a nonparty physician, the defendant must prove each of the elements of a claim for medical malpractice.
(Ibid.)
The Court explained, “[a]pplying the logic and reasoning of Wilson [v. Ritto], we conclude that a nonparty medical doctor cannot be found comparatively at fault unless the defendant proves all of the elements of medical malpractice.” (Id. at p. 1561.)
The Court of Appeal explained that while Wilson v. Ritto involved only the element of breach, “the logic and reasoning of Wilson should be applied to the other elements.” (Id. at p. 1572.) Therefore, “if a doctor’s medical malpractice did not proximately cause any harm to the plaintiff, the trier of fact cannot apportion fault to that doctor pursuant to Civil Code section 1431.2.” (Ibid.)
Accordingly, it was an error to allow the jury to write in other physicians on a special jury verdict form when “there was no expert testimony regarding the element of causation.” (Id. at p. 1573.) In that case:
While defendants’ experts were critical of [the toxicologist’s] treatment and discussed the dangers and risks associated with it, they did not actually offer an expert opinion that it was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries within a reasonable medical probability. Defendants therefore failed to meet their burden of showing Dr. Dahlgren was comparatively at fault for plaintiff’s damages for purposes of Civil Code section 1431.2.
(Id. at pp. 1572-1573.)
As such, the Court of Appeal reversed the jury verdict finding the non-party at fault on the special verdict form and remanded the case for a new trial. (Ibid.)
By filing a medical malpractice lawsuit, you are effectively handing the original tortfeasor a fully developed comparative fault defense. You identify the allegedly negligent providers, plead the specific breaches of the standard of care, retain the appropriate experts, obtain the relevant medical records, and develop the causation theories. Through discovery, expert depositions, and motion practice, you educate the defense on precisely which specialties to retain, which records matter, what questions to ask, and what arguments to make. In many cases, the original defendant could not have developed a viable medical malpractice defense on its own. By pursuing the medical malpractice claim, however, you have done much of that work for them.
Perhaps even more damaging, every allegation in your complaint, every response to written discovery, every expert designation, every deposition question, and every opinion offered by your own experts becomes a roadmap for the original tortfeasor. At trial, the defense can repeatedly point to your own allegations and argue that the catastrophic outcome was caused not by the original accident, but by the subsequent medical negligence. In short, you have armed the original defendant with the very evidence and theories it needed to substantially reduce its exposure for noneconomic damages.
IV. Turning the Healthcare Provider Into an Ally
Of course, there is one important exception. Sometimes the original tortfeasor affirmatively contends that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by subsequent negligent medical treatment. If the defendant is going to blame the medical providers anyway, the strategic calculus changes. In that circumstance, plaintiff’s counsel should seriously consider Doeing in the medical providers. Given the posture of the case, the providers and their attorneys often become aligned with, rather than adverse to, the plaintiff.
Faced with allegations that they negligently caused the plaintiff’s catastrophic injuries, hospitals and physicians have every incentive to defend their care and attribute the plaintiff’s damages back to the original accident. Rather than allowing the original tortfeasor to point to an empty chair at trial, bringing the medical providers into the case forces them to defend themselves.
That dynamic can dramatically alter the litigation. Instead of remaining nonparties while the original defendant blames them, the medical providers now have experienced defense counsel whose interests frequently align with yours on the central issue of causation. They will vigorously defend the medical care they provided, explain why the medicine was complex, emphasize the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries immediately following the original accident, and argue that the plaintiff’s ultimate outcome was the result of the original trauma or underlying medical condition, not medical negligence. During depositions, expert discovery, and trial preparation, those attorneys often develop testimony and evidence that reinforces, rather than undermines, the plaintiff’s case against the original tortfeasor. In effect, the original defendant no longer has the benefit of an undefended empty chair.
For that reason, plaintiff’s counsel should identify this issue as early as possible. Interrogatories and requests for admission should specifically ask whether the defendant contends that any subsequent health care provider negligently caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and, if so, require the defendant to identify each provider and state the factual basis for that contention.
Timing is critical. If you wait until late in the litigation to discover that the defendant intends to blame a medical provider, it may be too late to add that provider as a defendant. Medical malpractice claims remain subject to Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5’s statute of limitations, which may be one or three years depending heavily on the factual issues underlying the case. In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210 requires that a defendant be served within three years after the complaint is filed. (See also Nichols v. Alghannam (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 726.)
V. When You Should Pursue the Medical Malpractice Case
None of this is meant to suggest that plaintiff’s counsel should never pursue a medical malpractice claim arising out of a personal injury case. For example, if the underlying personal injury case has limited collectible assets, such as a low policy limits automobile case, an uninsured or underinsured motorist claim, or another defendant with insufficient coverage, a medical malpractice action may be the only realistic way to obtain adequate compensation for a catastrophically injured client.
Likewise, where the medical negligence is particularly egregious, such as surgery on the wrong body part, administration of the wrong medication, a retained foreign object, or another clear and indefensible departure from the standard of care, the medical malpractice claim should almost certainly be pursued.
In those situations, counsel should also consider resolving the underlying personal injury case before filing the medical malpractice action whenever possible. Doing so may avoid unnecessary procedural complications, including potential issues under California’s primary rights doctrine that could require both defendants to be joined in the same action.
The point is not that medical malpractice claims should be avoided. Rather, they should be pursued only after carefully considering whether they will increase, or inadvertently reduce, the client’s ultimate recovery.
(949) 229-5654
Santa Ana
