Subscribe in a reader

ISSAQUAH LAW GROUP

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.

WA Legal Roundup: Division III

 

Cox v. Oasis Physical Therapy, PLLC

Ms. Cox brought a complaint against her ex-employers for a multitude of things.  Unfortunately she brought the claims too late and the trial court found that they were barred by the statute of limitations.  But lets shake the dirt out in this case.

Cox worked for Ms. I and Mr. S at Oasis Physical Therapy.  Shortly after Cox started working at Oasis in 2004, she sought treatment for neck pain.  Mr. S provided the treatment to Cox.  Mr. S used a method “recognized throughout the world,” which involved Cox removing her bra and Mr. S massaging her chest for 45 minutes.  “Recognized throughout the world.”  Right.  Maybe throughout Perv-World!

Cox refused to have anymore treatment from Mr. S, but continued to work for the facility.  About one year later, Cox was fired.  Cox filed her complaint in December 2007. 

One of the causes of action that Cox filed against Oasis was for medical negligence.  Medical negligence claims must be filed within three years of the act or omission OR one year from the date that the patient discovered or should have discovered that the injury or condition was caused by the act or omission, whichever period expires later.  However, the statute of limitations can also be tolled by intentional concealment. 

So Cox claimed that she didn’t realize that the 45 minute breast massage wasn’t medical negligence because Mr. S told her this was an accepted method of treatment.  However, Mr. S didn’t tell Cox this to conceal what he did to her; he told her this to conceal the treatment he had provided to other patients.  Thus, Cox could not rely on this concealment as facts to show intentional concealment for her case. 

Cox also argued that she didn’t discover the treatment was not medically necessary until a Dept. of Health investigation in 2007.  I mean who wouldn’t know that a 45 minute breast massage is not medically necessary for neck pain?  So the discovery portion of the statute of limitations didn’t fly either. 

Cox attempted to apply the statute of limitations discovery rule to several other of her claims, but the Court of Rules didn’t buy it.  However, the Court of Appeals did buy the argument that Cox’s sexual harassment and discrimination claims did fall within the three year statute of limitations because the acts complained of fell within the three years.  The acts were part of the same actionable hostile work environment practice and thus if one of the acts fell within the three year period, they all were timely brought.  Finally, one that stuck!

Affirmed in part, reversed in part. 

Subscribe in a reader