The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

Yesterday, a California jury convicted Michael Jackson’s doctor, Conrad Murray, of involuntary manslaughter for Murray’s role in Michael Jackson’s death.

Under California law, involuntary manslaughter "is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection." Cal. Penal Code s. 192(b).

The jury found that Murray breached his duty of care as a physician in ordering nearly 4 gallons of propofol in his treatment of Michael Jackson and administering the drug inside Jackson’s rented home rather than in a hospital environment. Moreover, prosecutors alleged Murray administered the drug while making calls and sending text messages to a former girlfriend. When Murray discovered Jackson was in distressed, prosecutors allege Murray administered CPR on the bed, which also deviated from the standard of care for a physician, which requires administering CPR with a hard surface under the patient. Murray faces up to four years in prison.

The availability of manslaughter charges for conduct "without due caution and circumspection" make involuntary manslaughter similar to (though not the same as) a civil negligence claim. Yet in the civil context, a wrongdoer like Murray would be largely immunized through tort reform measures passed in California and elsewhere. You see, under California tort law, Dr. Murray’s conduct is considered medical malpractice and any loss related to pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement or other "non-pecuniary" injury is limited to just $250,000 under California’s medical malpractice damages cap. Cal. Civil Code s. 3333.2.

Thus, under criminal law, such conduct is so egregious that the wrongdoer can receive up to 4 years in prison, but under California’s tort reform damages caps, bad doctors are granted amnesty and immunity from the very same conduct.

And guess what kind of doctors does this tort reform policy attracts. Under Gov. Rick Perry, Texas enacted similar tort reform granting amenest to bad doctors and Perry claims that doctors starting flocking to Texas because of this immunity. One of those doctors was Dr. Konasiewicz, who had been sued 9 times for malpractice in Minnesota and publicly reprimanded by the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice. But Dr. Konasiewicz "flocked" to Texas and is lax rules for negligent doctors which allowed him to practice medicine on unsuspecting patients.

Tort reform protects bad doctors at the public’s expense and creates a situation where a doctor could go to jail for malpractice under a manslaughter charge, but be given tort reform amnesty for the very same conduct and protected against making his victim whole.

Read More:

[More on your 7th Amendment Rights]

(c) Copyright 2011 Brett A. Emison

Follow @BrettEmison on Twitter.


  1. Gravatar for Cilla Mitchell

    If this happened in the state of Texas, Dr. Conrad Murray would never make it past the Texas Medical Board because he would be shielded and allowed to practice freely under Tort Reform. Tort Reform in our state has allowed doctors to practice freely, leaving collateral damage behind without having to be accountable. The Texas Medical Board is stacked against Texans seeking accountability and is similar to a kangaroo court because half their members, including Dr. Irve Zeitler who is the president of the board, were appointed by Governor Rick Perry, who signed the Tort Reform Act in 2003.

    FYI: Dr. Conrad Murray is still active on the Texas Medical Board site since I last inspected it yesterday evening. I wonder how long it will take them to remove his name, if they will remove it at all.

  2. Gravatar for Anna Mae Rooks

    According to Leigh Hopper of the Texas Medical Board, the doctors "demeanor" carries more weight than medical records. She states "As for the board members who hear the case, when they hear the doctor's side of the story, it is fairly easy to tell when a doctor's care was callous and careless and just plain wrong...the doctor's demeanor tend to reveal that."

    Is this old gal serious?? THey can tell by the doctors "DEMEANOR?" Amazing. No wonder health care in Texas is so dangerous. Do they really think any doctor will incriminate him/herself?

    The medical community is very adept in trying to cover their tracks when their recklessness and gross negligence takes a patient's life. To think

    that "demeanor" tells the tale is insane.

  3. Brett: What a terrific post! When I heard the verdict, I thought that, while appropriate, the case was, and should have been pursued as, a civil malpractice case. But it didn't occur to me that, in California, because of these unjust caps, the Jackson family could not obtain true justice by filing a civil action. How sad that a family must turn to the criminal justice system because there is no justice in California's civil justice system. This article and your "real faces of lawsuit abuse" series make your IB material some of the best reading on our platform. Keep up the great work!

  4. Gravatar for Brett Emison

    Cilla and Anna - thanks for leaving comments.

    Mark - thank you for your kind words.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest