California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Ordered Date 10/9/13
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ct. No. BC392082 Richard L. Fruin, Judge.
Reback, McAndrews, Kjar, Warford & Stockalper and Robert C. Reback; Cole Pedroza and Curtis A. Cole for Defendant, Appellant and Cross-Respondent.
Tucker Ellis, E. Todd Chayet, Rebecca A. Lefler, Corena G. Larimer; and Fred J. Hiestand as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant, Appellant and Cross-Respondent.
Balaban & Speilberger, Daniel Balaban, Andrew J. Spielberger; Esner, Chang & Boyer, Stuart B. Esner and Holly N. Boyer for Plaintiff, Respondent and Cross-Appellant.
THE COURT [*]
It is ordered that the published opinion filed September 23, 2013 be modified as follows:
The second paragraph of the caption page which lists counsel for Defendant, Appellant and Cross-Respondent shall be corrected to read:
“Reback, McAndrews, Kjar, Warford & Stockalper and Robert C. Reback; Cole Pedroza, Curtis A. Cole and Kenneth R. Pedroza for Defendant, Appellant and Cross-Respondent.”
There is no change in judgment.
EPSTEIN, P. J.
In this case, we deal with the intersection of three statutes addressing the recovery of damages: Civil Code section 3333.2,  part of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA), limiting recovery of noneconomic damages for medical malpractice to a total of $250, 000; section 1431.2, part of the Fair Responsibility Act of 1986 adopted by the passage of Proposition 51, which provides that liability for noneconomic damages is several only, in accordance with the percentage of fault; and Code of Civil Procedure section 877, which addresses the impact of a good faith settlement on settling and nonsettling tortfeasors.
Appellant Franklin Moser, a physician, challenges the damages awarded against him in this medical malpractice action, claiming the trial court should have offset the entire award, including both economic and noneconomic damages, based on pretrial good faith settlements by two codefendants. In his cross-appeal, respondent Hamid Rashidi raises constitutional challenges to the limitation on noneconomic damages in MICRA. We find appellant was entitled to an offset as to the economic damages ...