Subscribe in a reader

ISSAQUAH LAW GROUP   PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION LAWYERS

Issaquah Law Group - 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 Supreme Court: Team Member Liability Need Not Show Any Particular Individual's Negligence

Grove v. Peacehealth St. Joseph Hospital

I’m going to treat this opinion a little more delicately than the last few, if only because I know more people will be reading it. 

Grove underwent a pretty complicated heart surgery. How complicated? It took six hours. Do you have any idea how many of my own heart I could destroy with Krispy Kreme donuts in that amount of time? The answer is probably just one, surprisingly. 

Anyhow, Dr. Leone performed the surgery. Other surgeons took over after the surgery to monitor Grove’s care when Dr. Leone was out. Due to complications, an infectious disease expert was brought in. Over time, complications became evidence in the leg, which, eventually, one of the doctors suspected was compartmental syndrome. If caught in time the leg can be saved. This wasn’t. The leg had permanent damage.

So what does that have to do with Peacehealth? A non-lawyer may think that the doctors work for Peacehealth, that is rare. The cause of action against Peacehealth was actually against the nurses, staff, managers, etc, that assisted the doctors in providing the care. Those team members (at least the ones that touched the patient) were responsible for letting the docs know how the patient was doing. Leone, as the one leading the surgical team, was responsible for quarterbacking, including making sure the entire team knew what to look for. He was the captain of the ship, so to speak. The subsequent monitoring surgeons were commanding officers at the time. They should have directed the team to look out for known complications, including compartmental syndrome.

The jury did find Peacehealth’s employees were negligent and that their care was part of the reason Grove didn’t fare as well. The trial court dismissed Peacehealth as a matter of law, stating that Grove had to identify the particular negligence of any one person on the team, as opposed to general negligence of the team overall.

The supreme court disagreed. As a threshold matter, the expert opinions had identified with particular the negligence of the surgeons, who were agents of the hospital in this case. 

Now, the opinion could have ended there. But the court goes on to look at whether this team theory is one that can be actionable at trial:

Additionally, we note that the Court of Appeals view that chapter 7.70 RCW "does not contemplate liability for groups of providers" appears to be overly restrictive. . . . The statutory definition of"health care provider” is nonexclusive, extending to "[a]n entity" "employing one or more" individual health care providers. RCW 7.70.020(3). The hospital is specifically identified as one such entity, and it would logically seem that a hospital medical team collaborating in providing treatment to an individual patient in accordance with hospital policies could constitute yet another type of "entity."

The court noted that the Court of Appeals failed to apply supreme court precedent from 1937 that where there is evidence of team member negligence, the verdict against the hospital can’t be overturned. 

To me, this opinion does not seem so much an expansion of RCW 7.70, the medical malpractice statute, but rather reaffirms as long as you have expert testimony regarding negligence and causation, it can be against an entity, which may involve an individual employee, team members, or the team as a whole.

The attorneys at Issaquah Legal Services are skilled at handling medical malpractice claims, and can help you to hold your doctors accountable.

Subscribe in a reader

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