Trial lawyers rally against Uber-backed fee cap initiative.

Almost four years ago, the Consumer Attorneys of California and the California Medical Association reached a historic deal to raise recovery caps under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act. Now some attorneys are comparing this MICRA to a new fee cap effort: the Uber-based initiative known as the Protecting Automobile Accident Victims from Attorney Self-Dealing Act.

A committee backed by the CAOC also announced this week that it is discontinuing one proposed initiative targeted at Uber to focus on two other efforts that performed better in polling. The CAOC-backed campaign effort, the Alliance Against Corporate Abuse, also rolled out a six-figure advertising campaign during the California Democratic Party Convention in San Francisco this past weekend, including truck advertisements touting a measure to hold rideshare companies liable for sexual assaults committed by drivers.

"This is the ad that Uber doesn't want you to see -- exposing their alarming sexual violence problem and silencing survivors," campaign spokesman Alex Stack said in a statement. "Now they're trying to change California's laws to prevent people from getting money for the medical care they need. That's why our campaign is moving forward with two measures to help prevent sexual assault in Ubers and protect people's ability to hold Uber accountable."

"The opponents' claims are patently false - and a desperate ploy by ambulance attorneys who want to continue ripping off accident victims," said Nathan Click, a spokesman for the Uber-backed initiative, in an email. "The initiative doesn't require or even suggest that medical expenses be paid out of attorney contingency fees. Instead, it puts a stop to hidden fees and referral schemes that ambulance attorneys use to drain plaintiffs of settlements."

Danny Abir, managing partner with ACTS Law, LLP in Encino, called Uber's initiative "worse than MICRA."

"While MICRA caps damages, this measure goes further and caps your access to justice," he said in an email. ""It forces injured drivers to prove and recover medical costs under restrictive government rate formulas, even for unpaid and future care, making full recovery harder and increasing the risk of medical debt."

MICRA is the deal insurers, doctors, lawyers, and tobacco companies famously sketched out on a napkin in a Chinese restaurant in 1975. It limited non-economic damages for medical malpractice.

To the chagrin of subsequent generations of lawyers, it did not include adjustments for inflation and was widely criticized in recent years for making it difficult for plaintiffs to find attorneys willing to take their cases. Some people who used to speak publicly about their role in that deal became more reticent to comment on it later in their careers. But for all its faults, the MICRA deal and the recent cooperation between doctors and lawyers also point to the idea that these longstanding interest groups can both work together and oppose each other from year to year.

The 40-year-old law and Uber's initiative have a lot in common. Both target personal injury litigation and set limits on attorney fees. Opponents of Uber's measure say it also has some aspects that may not be fully obvious to voters.

For instance, the initiative would limit attorney fees to 25% of a settlement. But there has been some dispute about whether medical fees would also come out of that 25% and not the 75% guaranteed to plaintiffs.

"Uber's proposed law says victims must keep 75% of the 'total recovery,' which sounds like 25% goes to pay their attorneys, but that's not true," wrote plaintiffs' attorney Nicholas Rowley and Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court in a commentary on Tuesday. "When accident victims need treatment and rehabilitation, providers treat them with the understanding they will be paid when the case is over, or 'on a lien.' These medical bills are not recoverable costs under the initiative and would come out of the 25% that would fund the attorneys' costs."

The initiative would not just cover accidents involving rideshare companies, but all traffic accidents -- and California has a lot of them. The California Highway Patrol's 2019 annual report, the last full-year data available before the COVID-19 pandemic, found 187,211 injury crashes leading to 3,737 deaths and nearly 270,000 injuries.

The CAOC-created campaign group is moving forward with two initiatives of its own. One would strengthen protections and liability for sexual assaults committed by rideshare drivers.

Stack said a committee formed to oppose Uber's initiative and support the two from his side has raised $55 million to date. He also pointed to fundraising by an group called Physicians for Personal Choice. It has raised $4.6 million, according to records from the Secretary of State's website. A spokesperson for the California Medical Association said it has taken no position on Uber's initiative. Uber moved more than $20 million into its initiative account this month.