Around The Firm

David L. Martin and Craig L. McIvor won a three-week jury trial in a medical-malpractice case, Callahan v. Ballard Emergency Group. Plaintiff claimed that an emergency-room physician failed to diagnose heart disease in a 55-year-old. The decedent was seen at the Ballard Swedish emergency room for chest pain. His cardiac enzyme studies were negative. His regular physicians saw him twice in the following days. Six days after his emergency-room visit, he died of ventricular fibrillation. Plaintiff sued several healthcare providers who “settled around” Dave and Craig’s client, leaving their client as the sole defendant at trial and forcing them to prove the fault of the defendants who had settled. Plaintiff asked the jury for $14 million in damages. After a day of deliberations, the jury returned a defense verdict. … Craig L. McIvor obtained defense verdicts in a Consumer Protection Act case against a physician specializing in interventional pain practice. In approximately 2000, the defendant began performing endoscopic microdiscectomy in his day-surgery facility. In 2006, at the urging of several local neurosurgeons and spine surgeons, state medical authorities summarily suspended his license, and then imposed significant restrictions on his performing this procedure. Several lawsuits followed. This case involved four plaintiffs. With the support of two of these same local physicians, plaintiffs argued that the defendant was not qualified to perform this procedure and that the defendant promised that he would cure their back pain. Plaintiffs sought damages, including attorneys’ fees, under the Consumer Protection Act. After two weeks of trial, the jury returned defense verdicts in all four cases.

Deborah A. Severson won summary judgment in a complex legal-malpractice case in federal court, Caldwell v. City of Bellingham, et al. Plaintiff Caldwell was the maternal grandmother of Z.A., a minor. Caldwell alleged that the City of Bellingham, its officers, and Deb’s attorney client, Kingsley, conspired to violate her civil rights to a “familial” relationship with Z.A. The minor’s father was deceased, and he was living with his mother and her convicted felon boyfriend. Z.A.’s mother died of a heroin overdose and he remained in the custody of the boyfriend. Kingsley represented Z.A.’s paternal grandmother and obtained a temporary order granting custody of Z.A. to the paternal grandparents. Kingsley requested that police provide “civil standby” while the order was served on Caldwell following the funeral of Z.A.’s mother. After the funeral, Kingsley served the order on Caldwell. Caldwell refused to comply with the order and tried to leave the funeral with Z.A.; surrounded by a crowd of 20-40 people attempting to block the two officers from Caldwell and Z.A. The officers arrested Caldwell after she refused to stop or speak with them, and Z.A. left the funeral with Kingsley’s clients. Caldwell alleged that defendants violated her rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal Civil Rights Act, alleging that she was Z.A.’s “de facto” parent and had a constitutionally protected right to familial integrity. Caldwell alleged that Kingsley was liable on the grounds that she conspired or acted in concert with the police. All parties filed motions for summary judgment. U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lasnik granted defendants’ motions, ruling that Caldwell was not a “de facto” parent and thus had no protectable liberty interest; and that Kingsley was not a “state actor” under § 1983.

Bradley D. Westphal recently tried Hokanson v Schell, a four-day jury trial. Plaintiff shattered his ankle when he put his foot through a porch stair in defendant’s rental house. Plaintiff’s past and future medical bills exceeded $61,000. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury for $900,000 at trial. The jury returned a verdict of $151,155.10 and then reduced that by 35% due to plaintiff’s contributory negligence. The jury’s verdict was less than Brad’s pretrial settlement offer of $100,000. … Brad Westphal also won a motion for summary judgment in Wherret v White, in which plaintiff claimed civil harassment, malicious harassment, outrage, and negligent infliction to the police. Defendant had earlier received an anti-harassment order against plaintiff and believed that plaintiff was violating it. Brad argued that the court should dismiss plaintiff’s suit pursuant to RCW 4.24.510, which grants immunity to a person who communicates a complaint or information to any branch or agency of federal, state or local government. The court granted the motion and awarded attorney fees to Brad’s client.

The Lee Smart Quarterly is a publication of the law offices of Lee Smart, P.S., Inc. for clients and others. It is intended as general information only and is not to be construed as legal advice. You should consult an attorney if you have any specific legal questions.

Editor: Jeffrey P. Downer	Eml: jpd@leesmart.com
Phone: 206.621.3482	Toll Free: 877.624.7990