Legal Opinion
Steinfeld v. Foote-Goldman Proctologic Medical Group, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 21, 1996No. B097270PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
EPSTEIN, J.
This appeal challenges the award of prejudgment interest and expert fees to a successful plaintiff following an unapportioned statutory offer of compromise presented to two defendants. We conclude that where multiple defendants face joint and several liability for the entire judgment, the statutory offer to compromise need not be apportioned. We also find no basis to toll the accumulation of prejudgment interest during the pendency of plaintiff’s earlier unsuccessful appeal.
Factual and Procedural Summary
In 1984, Phyllis Steinfeld filed a medical malpractice action against…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lakin v. Watkins Associated IndustriesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Bihun v. AT & T Information Systems, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1993
- Southern California Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractor Inc. v. California Apprenticeship CouncilCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Taing v. Johnson Scaffolding Co.California Court of Appeal · 1992
- Woodard v. Southern California Permanente Medical GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Textron Financial Corp. v. National Union Fire InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Burch v. Children's Hospital of Orange County Thrift Stores, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2003
- Steinfeld v. Foote-Goldman Proctologic Med. Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1997
- Deocampo v. AhnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Saakyan v. Modern Auto, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.