Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

Court of Appeals: Div. III – Implanting Allergic Metals Into Patient’s Body Not A Violation of the Standard of Care


Eakins v. Huber

This is a medical malpractice case that was dismissed because the plaintiff’s medical causation evidence failed to meet the standard set forth in Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923).  “Under Frye, evidence derived from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if the theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.”

In September 2004, Dr. Huber implanted three stainless steel stents in Ms. Eakins’ right coronary artery.  The stents contained 10 to 14 percent nickel.  Eakins is allergic to nickel.  Following the surgery Eakins experienced continued problems including a rash at the operation site, episodes of joint pain and swelling, fevers, chills, sweating, elevated blood pressure, itching, and general aching.  These symptoms occurred two to three times a month and lasted for two to four days.  Eakins saw several doctors, but none were able to diagnose her condition or attribute her symptoms to the stents.

In August 2007, Eakins filed a medical malpractice suit against Huber claiming that he knew of of her allergy to nickel and thus his implantation of the nickel-containing stents fell below the standard of care.  Ms. Eakins medical expert, Dr. Adams, filed a declaration which stated, "on a more probable than not basis to a reasonable degree of medical certainty the care rendered to Sheri Eakins fell below the standard of care for a physician practicing in Washington State, and said failure resulted in injury to Ms. Eakins." 

Dr. Huber moved for summary judgment because there was a lack of competent medical evidence establishing a causal relationship between her symptoms and the stents.  This was based on Huber’s argument that Ms. Eakins's theory of causation was not supported by sufficient scientific data or peer-reviewed literature indicating general acceptance of the theory in the pertinent medical community under Frye.  In response, Dr. Adams filed an additional declaration stating that the FDA had issued warning about implanting stents in patients with metal allergies and cited several medical articles linking these specific stents to allergic reactions. 

Dr. Huber, having a medical expert of his own, Dr. Ayars, filed a declaration stating: "on a more probable than not basis, that the field of medicine and in particular, the fields of allergy and immunology, have not generally accepted any causal relationship between the placement of a Taxus stent in a coronary artery and the development of a systemic reaction like that claimed by Ms. Eakins."  The trial court granted Dr. Huber’s motion and Eakins case was dismissed.

The Court of Appeals reviewed the summary judgment dismissal based on the application of the Frye test.  “We do not evaluate whether the scientific theory is correct, but whether it has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.”  The Court found that the medical literature provided by Dr. Adams did NOT establish expert consensus regarding the causation theory.  In addition, none of Eakins’ own physicians had concluded that the stents were the probable cause of her symptoms.  The trial court’s dismissal was affirmed. 


I’m wondering if a constant intake of Benedryl would combat the fact that you have something you are allergic to embedded in your body?!

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.