An act to amend Section 411.35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil actions.
Impact
The bill's amendment not only expands the range of professionals who are subject to malpractice claims but also specifies that the certificate must be completed by a practitioner, removing the previous provision that allowed attorneys to certify if they were unable to consult qualified professionals. This change is intended to enhance the integrity of the malpractice claim process and ensure that only valid claims are pursued in court, potentially reducing the litigation burden on professionals in these sectors.
Summary
AB2106, introduced by Assembly Member Patel, seeks to amend Section 411.35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, related to malpractice actions against architects, engineers, land surveyors, and now to include landscape architects, professional geologists, and geophysicists. The bill mandates that, for a plaintiff or cross-complainant to initiate action claiming professional negligence, a certificate must be filed that indicates consultation with a qualified practitioner from the same discipline as the defendant. This requirement aims to ensure that claims are grounded in expert opinion and avoid frivolous lawsuits based on malpractice claims.
Sentiment
The general sentiment around AB2106 appears to be supportive among proponents who believe it will enhance accountability and discourage unfounded negligence claims against professionals. However, concerns have been raised by some opponents regarding the increased barriers this may create for legitimate claims, arguing that it might inhibit access to legal recourse for individuals harmed by professional negligence. This has led to a polarized discussion about the balance between protecting professionals and ensuring accountability for negligent actions.
Contention
Key points of contention related to AB2106 revolve around the implications of raising the standards for filing complaints against professionals. Critics argue that the bill may lead to a situation where legitimate claims are discouraged due to the higher threshold for obtaining the necessary expert opinion before proceeding. Moreover, the stipulation that only practitioners licensed in California can be consulted may also pose a limitation, reducing options for plaintiffs who might find it challenging to secure expert testimony, especially in a timely manner in urgent cases.