San Diego Malpractice Shocker: $18 Million Jury Win Slashed, Lawyers Seek Bigger Cut

A San Diego jury thought it was delivering an $18 million lifeline to a woman injured during brain surgery. Instead, California's revamped malpractice law has chopped that verdict to about $8.8 million, and now the family's lawyers are asking a judge to boost their cut of the recovery. The request for a higher contingency fee could further shrink what the woman and her husband actually take home, and it is putting a fresh spotlight on how AB 35 really works once the courtroom lights go dark.

What the jury decided

Jurors found neurosurgeon Dr. Sohaib Kureshi negligent after an endoscopic transsphenoidal procedure at Sharp Memorial Hospital left patient Phuong Ho with a stroke, and returned a verdict of roughly $18,056,088. According to plaintiffs' filings and press materials, that total broke down to about $7.8 million in economic losses, $8.7 million in noneconomic damages for Ho, and $1.5 million for loss of companionship to her husband, per Vaage Law.

How AB 35 changed the math

AB 35, the 2023 overhaul to California's medical malpractice rules, raised caps on noneconomic damages and tied contingency fee limits to the stage at which a case is resolved. The non-economic cap in effect for 2026 is $470,000. Applying that 2026 cap to Ho's roughly $8.7 million pain and suffering award and to her husband's $1.5 million companionship award trims those portions to $470,000 apiece. Combined with $7.8 million in economic damages, the statutory total comes to roughly $8.74 million. The law and its phased schedule are outlined in the Governor's summary and accompanying policy materials, as cited by the Governor's Office.

What the attorneys want

Under AB 35, contingency fees on recoveries secured after a suit is filed are generally capped at 33 percent, although the statute lets a court approve a higher percentage for good cause when a case goes all the way to trial. Plaintiffs' lawyers Robert Vaage and Chris Hendricks have asked the court to sign off on a 40 percent contingency applied to the reduced award, saying they fronted roughly $300,000 in costs and logged more than 1,000 hours on the matter. Local coverage runs the numbers: a 33 percent fee on the roughly $8.74 million award would be about $2.9 million, while a 40 percent fee would be roughly $3.5 million, a swing that significantly affects what the family ultimately pockets, according to The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Voices on both sides

Vaage has said the case demanded a heavy financial investment, extensive expert work, and a full trial, arguing that a higher fee is warranted to make similar high-risk malpractice cases economically feasible in the future. Supporters of AB 35 counter that the reforms modernize an old system and expand access to the courts, especially by lifting long-frozen non-economic caps. On the other side, physician groups and some insurers warned during the legislative fight that higher caps could drive up malpractice premiums and, in some regions, affect access to care. Observers note that it is still early in AB 35's rollout, and that real world data on filings, settlements, and trials is only beginning to emerge, per Vaage Law.

Legal implications

The case is a clean illustration of how a headline verdict can bear little resemblance to what a plaintiff actually recovers. Statutory caps on noneconomic damages, layered with limits on contingency fees, can turn an $18 million jury number into a very different cash outcome. AB 35's combination of rising noneconomic caps and fixed percentages on post-filing recoveries may encourage larger jury awards on paper while reshaping the economics of which malpractice cases lawyers are willing to take and carry through trial. For the statutory text and policy context, the Governor's summary offers the key framework that lawyers and judges are now testing in real time, as per the Governor's Office.

What is next

A judge still has to rule on the petition for an enhanced contingency fee, a decision that will determine how much of the roughly $8.74 million actually reaches the family after lawyers' fees and costs are paid. Plaintiff attorneys, defense lawyers, and malpractice insurers are watching closely, treating this San Diego case as an early test of how AB 35 will play out in high-dollar medical negligence trials across California.