What is the test for determining punitive damages in a medical malpractice case?

There are "'three guideposts' for courts reviewing punitive damages: '(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.' [Citations.]" (Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 712.) Of these three, "the most important is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct." (Id. at p. 713.)

In examining the degree of reprehensibility, we "consider whether '[1] the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; [2] the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; [3] the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; [4] the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and [5] the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident.' [Citation.]" (Roby v. McKesson Corp., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 713.) As do the parties, we examine each of these factors.

Page 51