Skip navigation.
Law Offices of Michael Withey

Free Consultation (206) 405-1800

601 Union Street, Suite 4200 · Seattle, WA 98101

Immigrant Detainee Wins Precedent Setting Verdict Against State

November 16th, 2010

JURY FINDS STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESPONSIBLE FOR WRONGFUL DEATH OF DETAINEE FRANCISCO CASTANEDA; AWARDS $1.73 MILLION ; PUBLIC JUSTICE WINS IMPORTANT VICTORY FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

 

A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury Wednesday found the state of California liable in the wrongful death of Francisco Castaneda, a prison detainee who died of a metastasized cancer that began as a lesion on his penis that state prison and medical officials had refused to treat.

Concluding a 13-day trial, the jurors awarded $1.73 million to Castaneda’s daughter, who said the state’s neglect had deprived her of a promising future with her father.  About $230,000 of the award is for economic damages, such as past medical expenses for Castaneda.

“I am so happy the jury understood what the state had done,” said Vanessa Castaneda, 17, Francisco Castaneda’s only child. “When they came in with the verdict, I just felt that they were voting for justice.”

Francisco Castaneda was in state custody between December 2005 and March 2006, first in Delano, Calif., and then in San Diego.  Officials at both facilities ignored medical personnel’s calls for a biopsy to determine if Castaneda’s worsening condition was caused by cancer.

Castaneda got the procedure on his own after his release from detention in February 2007.  By then, it was too late.  His penis was amputated and he began a round of chemotherapy in a futile attempt to stop the spreading cancer.  Castaneda, 36, died at his home in February 2008.

“We are extremely gratified with this verdict,” said Conal Doyle, co-lead counsel on the team of Public Justice attorneys representing Vanessa Castaneda.  “Finally, after three years of the state denying responsibility, a jury of Vanessa’s peers found that the state killed her father and recognized the tremendous loss with a full and fair verdict.”

Public Justice, the Washington-based national public interest law firm, had maintained that the state could not argue that it was unaware of Castaneda’s need for immediate medical care when its own employees had requested it. 

Medical experts testified that Castaneda would be alive today had his cancer been diagnosed and treated while in the state of California’s custody.

In addition to Doyle, Public Justice’s legal team included co-lead counsel Adele Kimmel of Public Justice, and co-counsel Thomas M. Dempsey of Los Angeles and Public Justice Goldberg Attorney Amy Radon.  Mike Withey is a former President of Public Justice (1995-1996) and recipient of its most important award the Public Justice Achievement Award in 2006.

Bicylists Entitle To Safe Roadways

October 29th, 2010

Three years ago, a bicycle accident on a Seattle bridge turned physically strong and active attorney Mickey Gendler into a quadriplegic. He was recently awarded $8 million from the state, the highest payout to an individual since 2003.

I have found that representing bicyclists for highway design cases, or even when they are struck by negligent drivers poses tremendous challenges.  Most jurors are not avid bicylists. Those that are are usually excluded by the defense. Common juror attitudes toward bicylists on the road include the idea that “they don’t follow the rules of the road” and “they make me nervous” and “they should stay out of the way of cars” and the like.

But when the City of Seattle, for instance, puts a bicycle pathway or extends the Burke Gilman Trail in Ballard on a road where old and abandoned railroad tracks are located, the chances of a bicyclist having his tires caught in the tracks is pretty high and has caused numerous serious accidents, including a man I am representing.

A recent article in the Seattle Times describes a similar accident involving a Seattle attorney Mickey Gendler.  His attorneys did a fantastic job of representing him and obtained a terrific settlement. Here is the link: 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013265574_gendler27m.htmlMickey Gendler now spends most of his time at home in Seattle after being seriously injured in a cycling accident in 2007.

Enlarge this photoJOHN LOK / THE SEATTLE TIMES

Mickey Gendler now spends most of his time at home in Seattle after being seriously injured in a cycling accident in 2007.

Caregiver Suzanne Walker helps Mickey Gendler in his Seattle home. Gendler, a quadriplegic, relies heavily on such help from two caregivers to get through the day.

Enlarge this photoJOHN LOK / THE SEATTLE TIMES

Caregiver Suzanne Walker helps Mickey Gendler in his Seattle home. Gendler, a quadriplegic, relies heavily on such help from two caregivers to get through the day.

Why Contingency Fees Open the Courthouse Doors to Everyone

October 13th, 2010

The Contingency Fee is the ‘Key to the Courthouse Door”

 

There has been alot of controversy, mainly stirred up by the insurance industry, the US Chamber of Commerce, oil companies and mega-corporations about the contingency fee–where people who  are not wealthy enough to afford to pay an attorney significant hourly rates whether they win, lose or draw can have their day in court. A contingency fee allows an average joe or jane to go to an attorney and get representation because the attorney’s  fee would only come out of any recovery (compensation) that the attorney obtains.  No recovery, no fee!  It is an important part of access to justice and insuring that the courthouse doors are open to all, not just the wealthy and powerful.

On May 18, 2010, a federal appeals court issued a ringing endorsement of the value of contingency fees in preserving access to justice.  The case is In re Abrams & Abrams, No. 09-1283, which challenged a district court judge’s refusal to honor a contingency fee agreement between the parties to a personal injury lawsuit.   In reversing the district court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit wrote that contingency fees play a crucial role in our legal system because they “provide access to counsel for individuals who would otherwise have difficulty obtaining representation.”  Public Justice, along with the American Association for Justice, had filed an amici brief in the case urging the Court to rule as it did. 

Why I Care:
This decision is a slap in the face of all those who would seek to deny victims their right to access to justice.  The district court’s approach – if applied more broadly – could have drastically limited victims’ ability to obtain counsel in contingency fee cases within the Fourth Circuit.  But that would have been only the beginning.  If the district court’s contingency-fee-slashing approach had spread, it could have made it significantly more difficult for injury victims across America to obtain any compensation for their injuries, regardless of how badly the defendant may have acted. 

The Fourth Circuit’s landmark ruling not only stopped this potential trend in its tracks, but it presents, in stirring terms, a powerful endorsement of the oft-criticized contingency fee at a time that we need it most.  As everyone knows, the tort system — and, in particular, “greedy trial lawyers” — have been under assault in recent years, with conservative forces arguing that personal injury lawsuits, and the lawyers that bring them, are at the root of a host of evils.  The Fourth Circuit’s spirited defense of the contingency fee won’t halt this assault, but it does provide some dearly-needed ammunition in the fight to preserve access to justice.   Thanks to Leslie Brueckner of the Public Justice staff for the analysis in this article.  www.publicjustice.net

Go to www.walegaltimes.com  for more commentary