Wick obtains Defense Verdict in King County
In June 2008, Rando Wick obtained a defense verdict in a case involving a plaintiff who was seeking damages for the death of her father. The plaintiff alleged that a Virginia Mason vascular surgeon violated the standard of care by proceeding with surgery while the patient had an elevated anticoagulation level. The plaintiff claimed that the high anticoagulation at the time of surgery resulted in excessive bleeding, which interfered with surgical wound healing, and ultimately led the patient to bleed to death in his home. The defendant contended that the anticoagulation level was necessary given the patient’s propensity for clotting in the past. Mr. Wick’s arguments and expert testimony led to a defense verdict and the jury was unanimous,   12-0, returning the verdict within one hour.

Philip deMaine, New Partner
Philip deMaine became a partner in the firm effective January 1, 2008.  He will continue to represent healthcare providers in malpractice and licensing matters, as well as represent clients in general insurance defense claims and employment litigation.

In January 2008, Philip deMaine obtained a defense award at an arbitration in Mason County
The case involved a claim for personal injuries allegedly resulting from a motor vehicle accident.  Plaintiff claimed her vehicle was rear-ended by the defendant’s vehicle anywhere from 15 to 35 miles per hour, but there was no property damage to her vehicle.  She sought chiropractic treatment from two chiropractors following the accident.  The defendant driver insisted there was never any contact between the two vehicles and that an accident never occurred.  The testimony of a fact witness tended to support the defendant’s version of the facts.  For a variety of evidentiary reasons, Mr. deMaine was able to successfully exclude a number of proposed exhibits and witnesses plaintiff attempted to use at the arbitration hearing.  Not only did the arbitrator award a defense verdict, but he also determined plaintiff filed a frivolous lawsuit and awarded all of defendant’s attorney’s fees.

Wick and Holmes Win Dismissal Pursuant to Frye
In September 2007, Rando Wick obtained summary judgment dismissal of a claim in which plaintiff was seeking $10,000,000.  The pleadings were drafted by Kim Holmes after extensive research of national case law that has interpreted the Frye decision. The case involved allegations that two Virginia Mason physicians violated the standard of care by prescribing prednisone to a lupus patient, causing avascular necrosis. The plaintiff had obtained an expert witness from Texas with over 30 years of experience who supported the plaintiff’s case. Despite expert support to validate his standard of care and causation arguments, the plaintiff’s case was dismissed following Mr. Wick’s oral argument on Virginia Mason’s motion summary judgment. The defense persuaded the Court that current medical science did not support the theory that prednisone, in the amounts prescribed by Virginia Mason’s physicians, has a causal link with the plaintiff’s condition. The Court agreed with Mr. Wick’s argument based on Washington’s interpretation of the Frye doctrine and dismissed the plaintiff’s case in its entirety.  Mr. Wick had hired several nationally renowned experts who provided sworn testimony that the plaintiff’s expert’s opinion had no support in current medical science.  Mr. Wick, at the plaintiff’s expert’s deposition had previously shown that the plaintiff could present no medical literature to support the plaintiff’s theory. 

Donna Moniz Secures Defense Verdict
Donna Moniz successfully defended an emergency group, two emergency physicians and a physician assistant before a 12 person jury in King County in February and March 2007. The plaintiff alleged delay in diagnosis on the first day of care and treatment below standard on the second visit of a 43 year-old woman presenting with knee pain who developed necrotizing fasciitis. She suffered extensive tissue loss in her leg and complete blindness. Ms. Moniz helped the jury understand the devastating nature of this disease, the reasons why evaluation was appropriate and how the treatment provided met applicable emergency care standards. She also persuaded the jury that the underlying disease caused the injuries despite the excellent care by her clients. The verdict was unanimous for the defense.

Johnson Successfully Defends Emergency Physician
In February 2007, Clarke Johnson successfully defended an emergency physician in a medical malpractice case in Thurston County Superior Court. The 18 year-old plaintiff had been skateboarding with his friends on a plywood ramp propped on the shovel of a tractor. In the process, the plaintiff fell on his buttocks and impaled himself on a 1" diameter, 10" long steel rod. The defendant emergency physician took a history from the plaintiff, examined his wound, and concluded he had suffered a 1½" laceration of his buttock and discharged the patient. The patient was instructed to either see his primary care doctor or return to the emergency department in two days. Four days later, the patient returned to another emergency room, having developed peritonitis in the interim. A CT scan was ordered which showed that the rod had penetrated his buttock and entered the peritoneum to a depth of approximately 10".

The plaintiff alleged the emergency physician was negligent in taking an inadequate history and failing to order a CT scan. The defense argued that given the inaccurate history presented by the patient and the results of the doctor's physical examination, a CT scan was not required. The plaintiff called an expert in emergency medicine and also called the treating general surgeon, who served both as an expert witness on standard of care and causation. Mr. Johnson countered with an emergency physician who was also board certified in infectious disease, as well as a general surgeon. The jury was out for a full day before returning a 10 to 2 defense verdict!

Burnham Garners Jury Verdict for Client
Partner Jeffrey Burnham started 2007 off with a jury verdict in favor of his client, an employer in a hotly contested, medically complex workers compensation case. The employer had sought for seven years to close an accepted claim for a minor knee injury and reparative surgery. The former employee blamed the minor injury for not only a claimed aggravation of a degenerative knee joint condition, and leg and foot pain, but morbid obesity and depression, as well. He has claimed for several years that he could not work even in a sedentary or "light duty" position. Based on complex medical testimony presented by experts and attending doctors, Mr. Burnham was able to convince the jury that the claimed subsequent conditions were not related to the minor knee injury and that the former employee should have long since been back to work. The Pierce County jury decision thus overturned the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals' administrative decision.

Wick Successfully Defends Medical Center
In a three week trial in October, 2006, Rando Wick and Kim Holmes obtained a defense verdict for Virginia Mason Medical Center. The case was filed in King County Superior Court against the hospital and one of its surgeons, after the plaintiff experienced a complication during surgery which resulted in a below-the-knee amputation. The patient alleged that it was a violation of the standard of care to proceed with the surgery and that the physician failed to obtain his informed consent. The defendants' case was supported by a team of medical experts, local and national surgeons with exceptional credentials. The jury deliberated for approximately four hours before returning a unanimous defense verdict, affirming that Virginia Mason's physician did not violate the standard of care.

Burnham Secures Dismissal of Lawsuit
In August 2006, partner Jeff Burnham and associate Kim Holmes obtained a dismissal (judgment on the pleadings) for their client, a long-term care medical insurance agency, after it was sued for breach of contract and damages. The plaintiff, a disgruntled former agent with this small business client, sought to re-open a case arbitrated two years ago by Mr. Burnham. After extensive briefing and oral argument, King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector agreed that Mr. Burnham's arguments of claim-splitting and res judicata (prior judgment on the key issues) applied to the case, resulting in a dismissal in favor of the agency and an award of attorney fees against the plaintiff.

deMaine Obtains Defense Verdict in Auto Case
Philip deMaine obtained a defense verdict in a three day jury trial in February 2006.  The plaintiff brought a claim for injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident in March 2002.  The case initially went to arbitration in Pierce County, where the plaintiff was awarded approximately $30,000.  The defendants disagreed on both the issues of liability and damages, and therefore appealed the matter to be heard by a 12-person jury.  The plaintiff claimed he was traveling on I-5 South near the Highway 512 exit when he was suddenly rear-ended by the defendant.  The plaintiff testified that he never made a lane change prior to the impact.  The plaintiff's wife, who was traveling in the plaintiff's vehicle, testified consistently with the plaintiff's version of the facts.  The defendant sustained a concussion in the accident and had memory loss of the actual impact, although he did recall events leading up to and after the accident.  An independent witness who was traveling behind the defendant's vehicle testified that the plaintiff's vehicle made a lane change in front of the defendant's vehicle and that the accident happened immediately thereafter.  The plaintiff claimed in excess of $13,000 in special damages.  The jury rejected the plaintiff's version of the facts and found unanimously in favor of the defendant, thereby overturning the arbitration award.

deMaine Wins $1.5 Million Award in Fraud Case for Elderly Couple
In a one week trial in January and February 2006, Philip deMaine won an award in excess of $1.5 million representing plaintiffs in a fraud case in King County Superior Court.  The plaintiffs were an elderly couple who brought claims against one of their adult sons (and his wife) who had been given general power of attorney in order to handle all of his parents' financial matters, including their substantial assets.  Over the course of 4 1/2 years, the defendants transferred large sums into their personal accounts.  The defendants unsuccessfully argued that the vast majority of funds were used for the benefit of the plaintiffs, and that the defendants may have unintentionally used a small portion of the funds for their own benefit.  The plaintiffs had to sort through approximately five years of financial records in order to prove how much money had been used for the benefit of the plaintiffs as opposed to the defendants.  The plaintiffs used a forensic accountant to assist in calculating the amount of money misappropriated by the defendants.  Overall, Mr. deMaine and his clients prevailed on every claim asserted against the defendants, including fraud (which must be proven by clear and convincing evidence), conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the vulnerable adult statues.  They were awarded the entire amount requested, as well as attorney's fees and costs.