Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group - Personal Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: 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 and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

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.

WA Legal Roundup - WA State Supreme Court: Cause of Action for Loss of Chance of Better Outcome

Mohr v. Grantham

In Herskovits, the supreme court decided that there was a cause of action for a loss of chance of survival. But what if someone doesn't die, but instead lost the chance of a better outcome? That question is now answered. Mohr had a stroke, a bad one. Had Mohr had better treatment, the outcome would have been different:

The testimony included expert opinions that the treatment Mrs. Mohr received violated standards of care and that, had Mrs. Mohr received nonnegligent treatment at various points between August 31 and September 1, 2004, she would have had a 50 to 60 percent chance of a better outcome. The better outcome would have been no disability or, at least, significantly less disability.

Now, note, the court didn't need to reach that issue. Here, the chance was 50-60%, which makes it more probable than not that the failure to properly treat led to increased or total injury. They didn't need to touch Herskovits as the standard for a normal tort claim was right there.

The example I use is this: The expert says, well, there was a 60% chance if the surgery was done by someone competent, she would have had the same result. But a 40% chance she would have had a better outcome. The surgery as done gave her a 0% chance of a better outcome. Under the old standard, this did not meet more probable than not, and thus a directed verdict would have been appropriate. Now, there's a cause of action.

Subscribe in a reader

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