Sep. 13, 2012
Robert A. Olson
See more on Robert A. OlsonGreines Martin Stein & Richland LLP Los Angeles Litigation Specialty: civil appeals
State Supreme Court litigation is a high stakes game, and Olson has had some major wins - and losses - in the past year and a half. He calls it his "year of living tortiously," a reference to the number of high profile cases involving questions of tort reform and damages.
In August 2011, Olson convinced the state high court to limit what plaintiffs can recover in personal injury lawsuits. The court ruled that plaintiffs cannot recover medical damages in excess of the amount that health insurers actually paid on their behalf. Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions Inc., 2011 DJDAR 12533.
The stakes in the case were huge. While the difference between the billed amount and the negotiated rate isn't a lot in any individual case, industry experts estimated that a ruling in the plaintiffs' favor would have inflated damages awards by between $500 million and $2.8 billion a year. The ruling set California apart from most states. A bill intent on limiting the precedent set in Hamilton Meats died in the state assembly last month.
Olson struck out in a second case at the state Supreme Court. The issue involved an old common law rule on settlements not made in good faith. On behalf of a hospital facing millions of dollars in liability to a brain damaged boy, Olson argued that the court should affirm the common law rule that a settlement with one defendant that is deemed not in good faith automatically releases all other defendants from liability.
The boy's family reached an agreement with the doctor in a settlement deemed not in good faith, meaning the hospital would have been off the hook when it came to paying damages. But the court unanimously rejected that argument, ruling that Olson's client was not only liable but responsible for more than its proportionate share of responsibility under a policy of joint and several liability. Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital, 2012 DJDAR 11751.
The coming months will see Olson focusing on a new topic - the hot-button issue of arbitration. He is counsel on an important case that could have long-term ramifications for employers seeking to enforce arbitration clauses. The case goes to the heart of an unresolved issue in California law: whether state laws invalidating certain mandatory provisions in consumer contracts can stand in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's sweeping 2010 ruling green-lighting mandatory arbitration provisions. Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119.
Olson says he has a good perspective on how to appeal to the justices. "There is a misconception that oral argument is about making a speech or preaching to a court," he said. "In fact, if done right it's about stimulating and answering questions, and making the court comfortable with the position you're arguing."
- EMILY GREEN
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com