How have courts interpreted CACI No. 333 in the context of a medical malpractice claim?

prove to prevail on this theory. Plaintiff again claims the court adopted defendants' theory and, relying only on CACI No. 333, argues the instruction incorrectly states the law. Again, we disagree. The instruction paralleled No. 333 for the most part, adding only as an element of proof that defendants knew plaintiff was "in a position of severe economic vulnerability" when it refused to pay. Case law supports the addition. (San Diego Hospice v. County of San Diego (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1058.)