I have a hospital birth certificate, but i need the Original county birth certificate to apply for a passport.i want to get a passport so, i can go with my friend to Romania next year. i’m really worried that if i don’t apply soon it will be longer for it to arrive.I was born in arcadia, California. i would like to just order it online.i know my parents won’t drive all the way out there to los angeles just to pick up a slip of paper! how to i go about finding my birth certificate?is there an address of public records in which i go to retrieve it, or government website that i can order it on?
If you or a loved one has been misdiagnosed or have been a victim of medical malpractice in the State of California and would like to take the doctor or hospital to court, you my find it very difficult to get a lawyer to represent you.
There’s a reason California personal injury lawyers cringe at medical malpractice lawsuits – in this state, we have a $250,000 cap on medical malpractice awards and a cap on attorney’s fees. These two factors combine to make the pursuit of a medical malpractice not worth the costs and risks for wronged patients and their attorneys.
This cap on medical malpractice awards has been in existence for more than 30 years now in California. In 1975, the state enacted legislation capping malpractice awards and lowering attorneys’ fees (only for the patients’ attorneys) after doctors and insurers in California protested saying oversized awards and ever-increasing insurance rates were driving physicians out of the state.
What this law known as Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) essentially did was limit the amount of money for “pain and suffering” – which is the physical and emotional distress caused by an injury to $250,000. There is no limit on what patients can collect for loss of future wages and other expenses. So if a non-wage earner dies because of medical malpractice the maximum jury award would be $250,000 no matter what.
But the big question that lingers all these years is: Has there really been a benefit to the public in terms of insurance premiums lower health care cost because of this cap? Victim advocates and experts who oppose the cap say: No. This law, they say, is increasingly preventing victims and their families from getting their day in court.
This is especially true of the most vulnerable population such as low-income families, children and seniors. Opponents of the caps also argue that this limit on pain and suffering has never been raised or affected by inflation over the last three decades.
As for attorneys, it is not a cheap proposition. They bear the out of pocket costs of putting on these trials. Those costs easily exceed $75,000 and they have been skyrocketing over the years. Ad a discount fee structure and it makes no economic sense for attorneys to represent malpractice victims, they are much better off working for the medical providers and their insurance companies.
The malpractice caps are being reconsidered in many states because of the manner in which they have been hurting poorer patients.
But California has never reconsidered these caps. A recent Los Angeles Times investigation revealed that the cap is in fact preventing many California families from getting their day in court.
Here are some of the findings listed in the Times article:
Court malpractice filings have fallen in eight out of the 10 most heavily populated counties. In Los Angeles county there was a 48 percent drop in filings since 2001 and a 29 percent drop in Orange County,
At Kaiser Permanente, where arbitration is the way rather than court, claims have fallen by 20 percent since 2001.
The number of payments to victims and their families across California had also dropped by 24 percent since 1991. The Times looked at a federal database of half a million claims to make that determination
Insurance companies have made record profits in California compared to other states. The Times article states that California insurers have only paid 39 cents of every premium dollar since 1991 while the national average was 63 cents.
In spite of these facts, proponents of MICRA paint a dire picture of a world without caps or increased caps saying that it would lead to significantly higher healthcare costs and limit patients’ access to doctors.
But several studies done on the subject especially one by The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, say the malpractice caps have not helped doctors either. The study says that other state policymakers should learn from California’s experience.
The state with its cap tried to set tort limits and voters through the passage of Prop 103 in 1988 set the stage for insurance reform.
The study concludes that while the stringent continued regulation of malpractice insurance rates lowered premiums for doctors, malpractice caps and other restrictions on the tort system failed to provide doctors the relief they sought. This study found that malpractice rates rose six-fold between 1975 and 1988, until Proposition 103 was passed, after which those rates have held steady.
One of the largest studies done on the topic was by Dartmouth College researchers, which is also cited in the Los Angeles Times article. This study concluded that malpractice payments have risen along with medical care costs, while doctors’ insurance premiums grew way quickly – by double-digit percentages annually for some specialties.
The caps, above all, violate victims’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection by limiting what they can receive for their pain and suffering. How it is equal protection if you suffer a particular injury because of a doctor’s negligence as opposed to a traffic accident and the doctor is not held fully accountable, but the negligent driver is made to pay?
A recent decision in Cooke County, Illinois, where a judge struck down a two-year-old state law that capped compensation to victims, gives new hope. According to an article in the Chicago Tribune, Cooke County Circuit Court Judge Diane Larsen decided that caps on malpractice awards violated the Illinois Constitution’s “separation of powers” clause.
She ruled that the legislature cannot interfere with the right of judges and juries to determine fair damages. Her ruling reportedly falls in line with a 1997 Illinois Supreme Court decision, which overturned a 1995 law setting caps on personal injury lawsuits.
Many California personal injury attorneys are looking for the “right case” to appeal to our state’s highest court with similar arguments to overturn these caps that are neither equitable nor beneficial to doctors or patients. We hope this law changes soon so patients can actually get fair compensation for their injuries or at least the opportunity to have their day in court.
What is the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA)?
The law enacted in 1975 basically did the following:
Placed a $250,000 cap on the amount of compensation paid to malpractice victims for their “non-economic” injuries
Eliminated the “collateral source rule” that forces those found liable for malpractice to pay all the expenses incurred by the victim.
Permitted those found liable for malpractice to pay the compensation they owe victims on an installment plan basis.
Imposed a short “statute of limitations” on malpractice victims (generally one year).
Established a lowered sliding scale for attorneys’ fees that discourages lawyers from accepting malpractice cases.
Source: How Insurance Reform Lowered Doctors’ Medical Malpractice Rates In California, The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights
Trying to find a same generation relative given up by mother at birth. Only information known is mother and [supposed] father’s names, not useful if adopted and not being state employees; county of birth, age, gender, and birthdate within 2-4 days. I was thinking searching through birth records from the county in the relevant time period might provide some insight, wondering where this information could be found- not contacting the county about a known individual, but sifting through ‘all records’ cross referencing the information. How/where could this be done? And, what would another way be to find this person, that you know has worked for others or yourself.
Bad credit loan mortgages or non-status mortgages are purposely intended to serve people with a bad credit history. According to a recent survey, one fifth of all adults are not able to qualify for a standard mortgage as a result of a previous or current bad financial situation.
Credit history is based on information retrieved from sources including Public records such as electoral roll information, court judgments and bankruptcies; and Information provided by financial institutions and other lenders such as banks that provide credit accounts and lending facilities.
In order to calculate the potential risk in providing loans to the person, most lenders use independent credit reference agencies to gather and assemble this information since they are permitted by law to review a mortgagee’s credit report before granting approval.
Bad credit rating usually results from failure to pay off outstanding debts or other credit payments on time, due to factors such as outstanding rent or mortgage arrears, county court judgments (CCJ) or bankruptcy. There are also other reasons that can result in a bad credit record which include:
1. Foreclosure
2. Heavy medical bills
3. Settlements arising due to Judgments /divorce
4. Multiple credit cards
5. IRS debt
Bad credit mortgage is designed for people who are unable to take out a mortgage from high-end mortgage providers. However, there are several providers who are willing to take a risk and provide loans for individuals with bad credit ratings, but at a higher rate or lower maximum amount.
Normally, a bad credit mortgage loan has an introductory interest rate that is fixed for 2-3 years, which is substantially higher that the rate pertaining to a conventional 30 year fixed rate loan. This is due to the extra risk the lender has to take, because with a bad credit, the borrower’s probability of default on the home load is higher than someone with good credit. However, after the initial period, the interest rate on a bad credit mortgage will adjust periodically.
There are also a few factors that most lenders of bad credit loan mortgages will look into, before granting the loan mortgage to people with bad credit history. This includes:
1. Employment history and income stability
2. Current monthly debt
3. Value of the property and
4. Down payment
Since loan requests from people with bad credit do not fit under the standard underwriting guidelines, fees charged by lenders on bad credit mortgage loans are also significantly higher than those charged in a conventional or standard home loan. This can range from 1% to 6% of the total loan amount.
Since individuals who get a bad credit mortgage usually do so mainly because they want to put their credit back into good standing, or as an opportunity to clean up credit history, the higher interest rate need not necessarily lasts for 30 years. Additionally, if the monthly loan payments are in time for two consecutive years, the bad credit mortgage can be refinanced with a conventional loan at a much lower interest rate.
