Undoubtedly the victims. Unfortunately, there is no victims’ lobby which can make sense to the legislature of this fiasco. However, there is a strong lobby of insurance interests and doctors’ interest.

Here are a few quotes from various dissents (opposing opinions) of the California Supreme Court:

• “Although the hospital claims that periodic payments are fair to the malpractice victim because damages are paid out as they are incurred, this assumes that a court, in structuring payments for future damages, will be prescient enough to predict with unerring accuracy the future condition of the plaintiff and the rate of inflation for perhaps decades in the future. If the victim’s condition deteriorates so that medical treatment or custodial care costs are more than the amount set forth in the schedule of payments, he is unable to obtain the additional sums required because the payment schedule is fixed. Even if his condition remains as predicted, it is impossible to foresee in advance the rate at which future medical costs will increase. For a number of years, such costs have been rising at a pace substantially higher than the general inflation rate.”
  [Justice Mosk, Dissent 36 Cal.3d at 379.]

The legislative intent for passage of MICRA was the desire to reduce premiums for medical insurance and by that means to lower medical and hospital costs. As Justice Mosk noted in his Dissent in Barme v. Wood, supra, 37 Cal.3d at 182:

• “In the nine years since the adoption of the so-called Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975, medical and hospital costs have continued to rise astronomically. The only “reform” has been to magnanimously bestow on health providers a generous insulation for much of the responsibility for their more egregious negligence.”

Despite the harsh impact on victims in California, the Scarlett Law Group is ready to assist you. Knowing the twisted web the law is, the Scarlett Law Group can help.