In California, the 2026 MICRA cap on non-economic damages is $470,000 in an injury case and $650,000 in a wrongful-death case under Civil Code § 3333.2 as amended by AB 35; the cap rises annually and does not cap economic damages.
Key Takeaways
- The 2026 cap is $470,000 for injury cases and $650,000 for wrongful-death cases (Civ. Code § 3333.2).
- These are 2026 figures, not permanent caps; the schedule rises each January 1 through 2033, then 2% yearly.
- The cap applies to non-economic damages; medical bills and lost income are not capped by this limit.
- The cap applies per defendant category, so category questions require case-specific analysis.
Families in Hollywood and throughout Los Angeles County may hear that California’s malpractice cap is still $250,000, a figure that no longer describes the current schedule. This guide is for patients and families evaluating how MICRA may affect a claim in 2026. It distinguishes economic from non-economic damages, explains the annual schedule and defendant categories, and shows why a cap does not answer whether negligence occurred or what evidence supports damages.
What the 2026 MICRA cap covers
California’s MICRA non-economic cap is governed by Civil Code § 3333.2, as amended by AB 35. For 2026, it is $470,000 in a non-death injury case and $650,000 in a wrongful-death case. These are year-specific figures and should not be copied into a future review as permanent amounts.
Non-economic damages differ from economic losses. The verified facts identify pain and suffering as non-economic, and medical bills and lost income as economic. Economic damages are not capped by this MICRA limit. Whether a claimed loss fits a category and is supported remains a case-specific question.
The cap is not a prediction of what a case is worth or what a factfinder will award. It limits a damages category if liability and damages are otherwise proven. A patient must still establish the claim, and a defendant may contest fault, causation, and the amount claimed.
State the year whenever discussing an amount. The 2026 cap rises again on January 1, 2027 under the statutory schedule. A page reviewed later must use the then-current figure rather than repeat 2026.
How AB 35 changed the schedule
AB 35 amended the MICRA schedule effective January 1, 2023. The verified facts describe a 2023 base of $350,000 for injury and $500,000 for wrongful death, followed by annual increases of $40,000 and $50,000 respectively through 2033. The schedule reaches $750,000 and $1,000,000 in 2033, then increases 2% each year beginning in 2034.
This progression explains why older material may show a different cap. A flat $250,000 amount does not describe the 2026 figures in the verified facts. Always state the year and distinguish an injury claim from a wrongful-death claim.
The calendar year and the claim context both matter. A statement that “MICRA caps non-economic damages” omits important information. Listing 2026 values without saying they rise annually risks making a temporary amount look permanent.
If an event, filing, or resolution spans multiple years, do not assume which year’s figure controls without checking the governing rule. The verified facts establish the schedule and 2026 amounts, but do not resolve every possible date question.
Economic and non-economic losses are different
Economic losses are financial items such as medical bills and lost income. Under the verified facts, those damages are not capped by the MICRA non-economic limit. Organize evidence supporting economic losses separately from material describing pain, suffering, or other non-economic harm.
Non-economic damages include pain and suffering and are subject to the year-specific cap. The injury and wrongful-death amounts differ. Do not apply the wrongful-death amount to a living patient’s injury case or use the injury amount as the limit for every claim involving a death.
An economic item is not automatically recoverable merely because it is uncapped. The claim still must be proven, and the loss must be supported. The cap answers a limit question for one category; it does not establish negligence or that a particular expense was caused by care.
Keep records identifying the type, date, and source of each loss. Bills, income documents, and information about daily function answer different questions. Clear categories help avoid confusing uncapped economic damages with capped non-economic damages.
Defendant categories can affect the analysis
The verified MICRA facts state that the cap applies per defendant category: health care provider, health care institution, and unaffiliated provider. A case with multiple defendants may raise category questions sometimes described as stacking. It does not mean each named defendant automatically creates a separate full cap.
Whether a defendant fits a category depends on the legal and factual relationship, not merely the number of people or entities in a complaint. Employment, affiliation, and role may need to be established. The verified facts do not provide a universal classification for every arrangement.
Identify each potential defendant and the role each played. Keep individuals, facilities, and other providers distinct. A careful review can ask whether separate categories are actually implicated and what evidence supports that conclusion.
Category questions differ from allocation among defendants. Civil Code § 1431.2 addresses allocation of economic and non-economic damages in multi-defendant cases, while MICRA supplies the non-economic cap framework. These rules address different issues and should not be collapsed into a single maximum figure.
How the cap fits with liability and proof
A damage cap does not decide whether care fell below the standard. The malpractice question remains whether a reasonably prudent practitioner in the same field would have acted differently and whether any departure caused injury. Testimony from a practitioner qualified in the relevant field generally addresses those medical issues.
The cap does not replace proof of damages. A claim needs evidence for each loss, and the economic/non-economic distinction must be made carefully. A financial bill does not prove negligence, just as a description of pain alone does not show that the provider caused it.
When several parties may share responsibility, Civil Code § 1431.2 makes each defendant jointly liable for economic damages, while non-economic damages are several in proportion to fault. The interaction of allocation, cap categories, and proof can be fact-dependent. Do not calculate a personal outcome by multiplying the cap by the number of defendants.
A balanced review recognizes both statutory limits and defenses. A provider may contest breach, causation, amount, or category. Start with what the evidence proves and what remains disputed, not a hoped-for total.
Questions to organize for a 2026 damages review
Use year-specific language in every discussion of MICRA. The 2026 amounts are $470,000 for injury and $650,000 for wrongful death, and the schedule rises annually. Anyone updating a page after 2026 should confirm the then-current amount rather than reuse these values.
Prepare separate lists for financial losses and non-economic effects. For each financial item, record its date, source, and connection to the claimed injury. For non-economic harm, keep factual notes about daily effects without presenting them as a fixed valuation.
Identify each provider and institution that participated in care, and note relationships if known. Category analysis may matter, but a label cannot be assumed from a name alone. A case-specific review must examine the actual role and relationship.
Bring these items to a review:
- The year and type of claim: injury or wrongful death.
- A list of each provider, institution, and other potential defendant.
- Separate records for medical expenses, income loss, and non-economic impact.
- A timeline and evidence relevant to breach and causation.
- Questions about the current year’s cap and defendant-category analysis.
Describe the cap without turning it into a prediction
When communicating the 2026 amount, put the year next to each figure and distinguish injury from wrongful death. Those amounts differ and both rise under AB 35. Do not copy a number into new material without checking the applicable year.
The cap is a statutory limit on non-economic damages, not a formula valuing a person’s experience. Do not imply the maximum is automatically awarded or every claim reaches it. Liability and evidence of damages remain separate questions.
List economic losses separately with records for medical bills and lost income. The fact that these are not capped by § 3333.2 does not make every claimed item recoverable. Evidence must connect the loss to injury and support its amount.
If multiple providers or institutions are involved, preserve their roles and relationships. The verified category rule may require analysis, but counting names does not establish that multiple caps apply. The actual relationships and facts matter.
Keep the cap separate from allocation under Civil Code § 1431.2. That section addresses joint economic and several non-economic liability; § 3333.2 supplies the MICRA cap. Evaluate allocation, category, and damages proof as distinct steps.
For publication after 2026, check the schedule again. The verified facts say figures rise each January through 2033 and then 2% annually. A correct 2026 explanation can become outdated with the next January adjustment.
For a case review, ask which year’s figure is used, which damages are economic or non-economic, what evidence supports each item, and whether a defendant-category question is genuinely raised. These questions are more useful than a single projected total.
Los Angeles County context
These guides address California law for a possible malpractice injury in Los Angeles County. Most personal injury cases arising in the county are filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court and Los Angeles County Superior Court; the exact courthouse assignment should be confirmed for each case before filing. Keep the provider and facility names in your timeline, because the responsible legal entity and any public-entity status can affect the deadlines to review.