Challenging Medical and Corporate Monoliths in the Inland Empire

For more than three decades, Patricia A. Law has operated at the nexus of human tragedy and corporate transparency. Operating out of the Inland Empire, she has forged a reputation as a relentless trial lawyer willing to confront the defensive fortifications of the healthcare industry, the insurance sector, and corporate manufacturers. With over one hundred civil jury trials and binding arbitrations (private, out-of-court dispute resolutions where an arbitrator’s decision is final and enforceable) to her name, Law has secured more than $175 million in verdicts and settlements. Her practice is defined by a willingness to challenge entities that operate with presumed impunity—ranging from the Regents of the University of California and massive healthcare networks like Kaiser Permanente to entrenched insurance conglomerates.

Law’s legal career is built on the premise that severe professional negligence, catastrophic injury, and corporate bad faith cannot be remedied through quiet deference to defense narratives. Her courtroom advocacy forces a public accounting of concealed errors, prioritizing the rights of victims over the reputation management of powerful medical and corporate defendants. Whether exposing the lethal overreach of a healthcare professional acting beyond their licensing scope, dissecting the failure of an insurance company to honor a catastrophic fire loss, or fighting bureaucratic legal doctrines at the California Supreme Court, Law exemplifies a deeply substantive approach to civil litigation.

The Tragic Bounds of Professional Licensure: Drost v. Sheridan

The stakes of Law’s practice are most vividly illustrated by cases where bureaucratic or professional overreach results in irreversible human loss. This dynamic was brought into stark relief in Drost v. Sheridan, a wrongful death case that resulted in a staggering $29.5 million jury verdict. The matter centered on the preventable death of fourteen-year-old Jake Drost, who collapsed from fatal cardiac arrest after participating in a one-hundred-yard dash for his school’s Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) program.

Jake had a known, pre-existing heart condition. Prior to participating in the program’s strenuous physical activities, he was evaluated by the defendant, Shamus Sheridan, a licensed chiropractor. Sheridan cleared the teenager for the JROTC program. Representing the grieving father, Jeffrey Drost, Law anchored her litigation strategy on a critical violation of professional boundaries. She argued that a chiropractor possesses neither the legal authority nor the medical training to evaluate the cardiovascular risks of a pediatric patient undergoing strenuous exercise. By assessing Jake’s cardiac history and issuing a medical clearance, the defendant effectively engaged in the unauthorized practice of pediatric cardiology, stepping dangerously outside the scope of his chiropractic license.

The defense argued that the chiropractor had acted within the standard of care for his profession and had not crossed the line into practicing medicine. However, Law’s systematic dismantling of this narrative at trial proved insurmountable. The jury returned a special verdict (a jury’s detailed written finding on specific factual questions posed by the court, rather than a simple declaration of fault) finding the defendant negligent in his evaluation and clearance, assigning a monumental $7 million in past non-economic damages (compensation for subjective harms such as pain, suffering, and loss of companionship, as opposed to quantifiable financial losses like medical bills) and $22.5 million in future non-economic damages.

While the raw verdict served as a profound validation of the plaintiffs’ suffering and a searing public rebuke of the defendant’s overreach, the aftermath of the trial highlighted the structural obstacles inherent in medical malpractice litigation. Crucially, the jury awarded zero dollars in uncapped economic damages. As a result, the trial court was bound by the rigid constraints of California’s Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA)—a statutory cap designed to insulate the medical industry from catastrophic financial exposure—and slashed the $29.5 million valuation. The final financial judgment for the grieving family was strictly capped at exactly $250,000. Even as the procedural realities of tort reform curtailed the monetary recovery, Law’s ability to secure a $29.5 million jury valuation demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to communicate the magnitude of human loss to a jury, cutting through the sanitized defenses of the medical lobby.

Piercing the Shield of Medical Infallibility

In the highly specialized arena of medical malpractice, plaintiffs face structural disadvantages. Hospitals, university medical systems, and corporate healthcare providers deploy formidable defense teams, relying on the inherent complexity of medicine to obscure diagnostic failures, surgical errors, and administrative negligence. Law has built a formidable track record of piercing these corporate healthcare shields, translating complex medical timelines into undeniable narratives of liability.

In Posjena v. Regents of the University of California, Law confronted one of the state’s most prestigious academic and medical entities. The case involved the devastating failure of medical professionals to diagnose malignant melanoma, a delay that ultimately cost a mother her life. Juries are often hesitant to second-guess the diagnostic decisions of esteemed university physicians. To overcome this deference, a trial lawyer must meticulously reconstruct the chain of medical interactions, highlighting the exact moments where the standard of care was abandoned in favor of hospital convenience or diagnostic complacency. Law successfully navigated this highly technical landscape, securing a $10.6 million wrongful death verdict against the Regents of the University of California.

Her footprint in the medical malpractice sector extends across multiple high-stakes verdicts against major corporate providers. She obtained a $3.75 million medical malpractice verdict against Kaiser Permanente, an organization known for its insular and aggressive defense of its physicians and facilities. While precise diagnostic details regarding the exact medical error that triggered this $3.75 million verdict are absent from the firm’s public case summaries, it reflects a broader strategy of forcing adversarial transparency on massive healthcare networks. In another matter against Kaiser, she secured a $3 million verdict in a case involving a failure to obtain informed consent prior to brain surgery, as well as a $1.3 million verdict for a failure to discontinue a patient’s blood-thinning medication following an automobile accident. By consistently taking these medical conglomerates to trial, Law compels a level of public scrutiny that corporate healthcare systems aggressively attempt to avoid.

Battling Bureaucratic Immunity at the Appellate Level

Law’s advocacy is not confined to the trial court; she actively challenges the legal doctrines that shield corporations from liability. Her work at the appellate level demonstrates a willingness to combat the bureaucratic frameworks that prioritize administrative comfort over individual rights and human well-being.

This commitment was evident in King v. CompPartners, Inc., a case Law argued before the California Supreme Court in 2018. The factual matrix of the case represented a modern nightmare of administrative healthcare. A worker sustained a back injury on the job and was subsequently prescribed Klonopin to manage the resulting anxiety and depression. Two years later, a corporate utilization reviewer—operating remotely for an entity contracted to manage the employer’s workers’ compensation claims—determined the medication was medically unnecessary and abruptly decertified the prescription. Crucially, the reviewer authorized no weaning regimen and issued no warning regarding the severe physiological dangers of sudden Klonopin withdrawal. Consequently, the worker suffered a series of four debilitating seizures.

Law filed tort claims against the utilization review company, arguing that the reviewer owed a common-law duty of care (a legal obligation established by decades of judicial precedent requiring individuals and corporate entities to adhere to a standard of reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to others) to the patient to warn of the dangers of sudden withdrawal or to provide a weaning protocol. The defense invoked the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), arguing that the statutory scheme provided the “exclusive remedy” for any injuries arising from the claims process, thereby preempting any civil lawsuit.

At the California Supreme Court, Law confronted the profound asymmetry of the workers’ compensation system—a framework originally designed to protect workers, which has increasingly evolved into a liability shield for corporate medical reviewers. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the plaintiff, holding that the utilization reviewer’s acts fell squarely within the statutorily mandated workers’ compensation claims process. Therefore, the WCA’s exclusivity provisions preempted the tort claims. Though the court’s decision entrenched the corporate immunity of utilization reviewers, Law’s aggressive pursuit of the case to the state’s highest court exposed the harsh realities of a bureaucratic system that leaves injured workers without adequate recourse when distant administrative decisions result in severe physical trauma.

Law achieved a more nuanced doctrinal outcome in the California Court of Appeal with Flores v. Liu (2021). The case involved a patient who underwent a gastric re-sleeve surgery—recommended by her surgeon after previous bariatric procedures had failed—and subsequently sued the physician for negligent recommendation and a lack of informed consent. A critical legal question emerged: Does a patient’s informed consent to a procedure automatically erase a physician’s liability for negligently recommending that procedure in the first place?

The trial court had incorrectly instructed the jury that a fully informed consent would cut off liability for an erroneous medical recommendation. Law successfully challenged this premise on appeal. The appellate court established a vital boundary for medical responsibility, ruling that a physician may indeed be liable for negligently recommending a course of treatment if all reasonable physicians would agree the risks outweigh the benefits. Furthermore, the court held that a patient’s informed consent does not legally negate the physician’s negligence in recommending the futile or dangerous procedure. While the appellate court ultimately affirmed the defense judgment based on the specific evidentiary record of the surgeon’s conduct—noting that the surgeon’s recommendation was supported by a diagnostic “swallow test” and corroborated by expert bariatric surgeons who testified that a gastric re-sleeve remained a viable, medically acceptable option under the plaintiff’s unique physical circumstances —Law’s appellate advocacy successfully fortified the legal doctrine protecting vulnerable patients from reckless surgical advice.

Corporate Liability and Bad Faith Litigation

Beyond the medical sector, Law frequently litigates against product manufacturers and insurance companies. In these arenas, the power dynamic pits an isolated individual dealing with catastrophic loss against multinational corporations deeply invested in mitigating their financial exposure.

In the realm of insurance bad faith, Law secured a $4.7 million verdict in Mnatsakanyan v. CalFarm. The case involved an insurance company’s refusal to honor its contractual obligations following a devastating fire loss. Bad faith litigation requires an attorney to peel back the layers of corporate claims-handling, exposing the internal communications, delayed investigations, and arbitrary denials used by insurers to leverage a policyholder’s desperation into a cheap settlement. Law’s multi-million-dollar verdict penalized the insurer for abandoning its fiduciary responsibilities (the highest standard of care in law, requiring a party to act in the best financial and legal interest of their policyholder), sending a clear message that wealth-hoarding at the expense of devastated policyholders carries a heavy judicial price.

Her footprint in catastrophic personal injury and product liability is equally formidable. Representative results include a $17.5 million settlement for plaintiffs K.V. and W.W. against a local rental company, following severe burn injuries sustained in a catastrophic tank explosion. She also secured a $5 million wrongful death settlement for plaintiffs E.S., R.S., and J.S. against a local radiologist and radiology clinic over a fatal failure to diagnose breast cancer, and a $1.6 million verdict against Toyo Tire in a defective product case. She has also successfully pursued pharmaceutical manufacturers for defective medical patches and scooter companies for failure-to-warn liabilities.

A Legacy Forged in the Courtroom

Born in San Francisco to Scottish immigrant parents and raised in the Inland Empire, Law earned her undergraduate degree in history at the University of California, Riverside, before obtaining her law degree from the Whittier College School of Law in 1992.

In a profession where many litigators rarely see the inside of a courtroom, Law’s commitment to the jury trial remains her defining professional characteristic. She maintains an intense docket, continuing to try or arbitrate multiple complex cases each year. Her formidable trial skills have earned her the elevated rank of Advocate within the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), an invitation-only organization that requires a rigorous threshold of civil jury trial experience. Demonstrating her leadership within the bar, she became the first female president of her local ABOTA chapter.

Her accolades reflect a career spent on the front lines of civil litigation. She is a multi-year recipient of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers designation by the American Trial Lawyers Association (2007, 2009, 2013, 2017) and has been recognized as the Trial Lawyer of the Year by the Consumer Attorneys of Inland Empire, largely in recognition of her advocacy in Drost v. Sheridan. In 2025, she received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Western San Bernardino County Bar Association.

Crucially, Law utilizes her position to alter the demographics and culture of the trial bar. She serves as an Adjunct Professor of Torts, Ethics, and Trial Practice at Western State College of Law and is heavily involved in the Women of the Bar Mentor Program for Riverside County. Balancing the demands of a high-stakes litigation practice as a single mother, she frequently speaks on navigating the grueling intersection of professional duty and family life. As she looks toward the future, her deep procedural knowledge and courtroom tenacity remain unblunted, with plans to continue her trial practice alongside her daughter, who is slated to graduate from law school in 2028. Through decades of confronting concentrated corporate and medical power, Patricia A. Law has proven that even the most heavily fortified entities can be compelled to answer to a jury.