Whatley-Miller v. Cooper
212 Cal. App. 4th 1103
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Thomas Miller died December 8, 2006; plaintiffs Susanne Whatley-Miller and two daughters sued Dr. Stark, Dr. Cooper, and Verdugo Hills Hospital for medical negligence and wrongful death; hospital dismissed with prejudice.
- First trial: Dr. Stark prevailed, verdict against Dr. Cooper was hung.
- Second trial: plaintiffs prevailed against Dr. Cooper; noneconomic damages reduced to $250,000; total judgment $1,437,276 ($1,187,276 economic, $250,000 noneconomic).
- Remittitur entered reducing economic damages by $238,369 to $948,907; amended judgment filed September 9, 2011.
- On appeal, Dr. Cooper challenged (i) the validity of plaintiffs’ section 998 offer to compromise and related costs and prejudgment interest, and (ii) the reasonableness/necessity of expert fees; court upheld the trial court’s rulings.
- Court affirmed judgment and awarded costs on appeal to plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 998 offer despite separate acceptance | Acceptance met by two documents served together. | Offer lacked proper acceptance form. | Acceptance sufficient; offer valid under §998. |
| Offer made in good faith | Offer reasonable given decedent’s income and policy limits. | Offer premature or not adequately time to evaluate. | No abuse; offer made in good faith. |
| Reasonableness of expert fees taxed as costs | Fees properly documented and necessary. | Some fees excessive or unsupported. | Fees reasonably necessary; no reversal. |
| Effect of mistrial on 998 offer | Offer remained valid after mistrial for Dr. Cooper. | Mistrial extinguished offer. | Offer remained valid; not extinguished by mistrial. |
| Procedural conformity with 998 acceptance form | Acceptance integrated with offer in envelope; sufficient. | Need for Judicial Council form. | Form compliance not required; substance prevails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Najera v. Huerta, 191 Cal.App.4th 872 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (time-critical context affects reasonableness of offer)
- Puerta v. Torres, 195 Cal.App.4th 1267 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (no acceptance term; invalid offer when no acceptance mechanism)
- Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc., 195 Cal.App.3d 692 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (reasonableness of §998 offer depends on information available)
- Westamerica Bank v. MBG Industries, Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 109 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (two-step test for reasonableness of §998 offers)
- Jones v. Dumrichob, 63 Cal.App.4th 1258 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (§998 offer must be realistic and have prospect of acceptance)
- Nelson v. Anderson, 72 Cal.App.4th 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (burden of proof on objecting party regarding costs)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles, 149 Cal.App.4th 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (prima facie evidence for costs when properly documented)
- Perez v. Torres, 206 Cal.App.4th 418 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (reaffirmed that form differences do not defeat substance)