Ketia Wick Named to Prestigious Law Association
Ketia Wick has been selected to join the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). ABOTA is a national association of experienced trial lawyers and judges dedicated to the preservation and promotion of civil jury trial right provided by the Seventh Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. ABOTA works to uphold the jury system by educating the American public about the history and value of the right to a jury trial.
Alison Grennan elected to the 2013 Board of Directors of Washington Health Care Risk Management Society (WCHRMS)
Alison Grennan is honored to serve as a Trustee on the 2013 WCHRMS Board of Directors. WHCRMS was organized in 1983 as a forum for risk managers and others within the healthcare industry whose professional practice contributes to the identification, assessment, prevention, and control of risk.
Phil de Maine and Tom McCurdy Obtain Favorable Result
Phil de Maine and Tom McCurdy obtained a favorable settlement on behalf of a general surgeon one week into trial in Pierce County Superior Court. The plaintiff claimed permanent cognitive impairment and physical injuries arising from complications resulting from a ventral incisional hernia repair surgery. The plaintiff developed severe infection post-operatively, including sepsis, multi-organ failure, intubation, and required a month-long hospital stay. After completion of one week of trial, without a single witness called by the defense, plaintiff vigorously pursued settlement resulting in a confidential settlement favorable to the defense.
Defense verdict for John Graffe and Alison Grennan
John Graffe and Alison Grennan successfully defended an orthopedic surgeon in a seven-day jury trial in King County. The plaintiff, age 72, underwent direct lateral interbody fusion spine surgery to address increasingly debilitating back pain. During the surgery, the plaintiff suffered a nerve injury, which is a known complication of the procedure. The parties did not agree on the timing, cause, or extent of the injury. The plaintiff alleged that the injury occurred as a result of a breach of the standard of care by the surgeon. The defense argued that the care provided was within the standard of care, and that the injury happened later in the surgery, when there was no allegation of negligence. The defense argued that its theory of timing was supported by neurophysiological monitoring data obtained during the surgery, which the plaintiff disputed. The jury returned a defense verdict, finding no violation of the standard of care.
Phil deMaine Secures Defense Verdict For Orthopedic Surgeon
In nearly a month long trial, Phil deMaine obtained a defense verdict on behalf of an orthopedic surgeon. The plaintiff, a 28-year old active man, sustained a kick injury to his leg in a soccer game. He sought treatment at the emergency room on four occasions and was not diagnosed with compartment syndrome until about six days after the original injury. His injury caused necrosis of nearly all muscle in the anterior compartment of his leg, causing a foot drop and a markedly abnormal gait. The facts of the case were particularly sympathetic for the plaintiff, as he was a likeable, young, healthy and athletic individual prior to the injury. Plaintiff brought suit against the orthopedic surgeon, two ER physicians, and the hospital claiming failure to diagnose compartment syndrome. As the specialist asked to evaluate the patient for compartment syndrome, Mr. deMaine's client was the plaintiff's primary "target" in the lawsuit. The defendants were forced to try the case after plaintiff refused substantial settlement offers. After a little more than three hours of deliberation, the jury unanimously returned a verdict that all of the defendants' treatment complied with the standard of care.
Defense Verdict for Rando Wick, Robin Mar, and Michael McDermott
Mr. Wick, Ms. Mar, and Mr. McDermott successfully defended a local orthopedic surgeon in a ten-day jury trial. The plaintiff underwent a thoracoscopic partial discectomy and biopsy of his T6-7 disc on April 11, 2007, to identify a progressing and unknown infection in his spine with the defendant doctor. The surgery was complicated due to significant malnutrition, an AIDS infection, and other serious ailments. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the standard of care when he obtained too much tissue from the T6-7 disc, thus destabilizing the spine, which resulted in a burst fracture of the T7 vertebrae and resulting paralysis. He asked the jury for $6.9 million dollars. The defense denied all liability and allegations, arguing that the surgery was performed well within the standard of care, specifically that it was within the standard of care to obtain a significant amount of tissue from T6-7 to obtain a proper biopsy and debride dead tissue to assist with antimicrobial treatment. Furthermore, the biopsy and any debridement did not cause destabilization of the spine. Instead, the paralysis was caused by an ischemic stroke in the spine as evidenced by a significant drop in blood pressure upon induction of anesthesia and prolonged hypotension. The jury concluded that the defendant did not violate the standard of care and that there was no negligence. The plaintiff's informed consent claim was dismissed on summary judgment before trial.
Defense verdict for Donna Moniz and Alison Grennan
Donna Moniz and Alison Grennan successfully defended a medical clinic that provides jail nursing services in a four-day jury trial in Lewis County. The plaintiff alleged that the jail nurse failed to diagnose his appendicitis before it ruptured, and that he suffered extensive complications as a result of the rupture. The defense argued that the care provided by the nurse was within the standard of care and disputed the extent of the plaintiff's alleged complications. The defense further argued that diagnosis of the plaintiff's appendicitis was complicated by the fact that the plaintiff lied to the jail nurse about his symptoms and had a retrocecal appendix. The plaintiff's wage loss claim was dismissed by directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case. After deliberating for approximately 30 minutes, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict.
Miranda Aye Successfully Defends Hospital in Arbitration
Miranda Aye obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a hospital which was accused of negligently allowing a patient to fall. The plaintiff was recovering post-operatively in the hospital when he abruptly rose from bed and loss consciousness. The plaintiff fell forward and broke two of his front teeth. The plaintiff claimed he was reaching for his emesis basin, which was not within reach, and that the nurses failed to properly educate him on safe fall prevention measures, per the hospital's protocol. Ms. Aye argued that all necessary items were within reach, and that the nurses met the standard of care and followed all protocols. The arbitrator returned a defense verdict.
Summary Judgment Dismissal Obtained by Miranda Aye
Miranda Aye successfully argued for the dismissal of a case filed on behalf of a minor plaintiff who alleged that a delay in diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux resulted in the loss of one of her kidneys. Although the plaintiff presented support from national experts on standard of care and causation, the minor plaintiff did not file timely via her parents. The plaintiff argued that the Statute of Repose preserved the claim, and alternatively argued that the legislature's amendment as to the tolling of the Statute of Limitations for minors was unconstitutional. The Court found that the plaintiff's claim was not timely filed and entered summary judgment dismissal of the case.
Directed Verdict for John Graffe and Miranda Aye
John Graffe and Miranda Aye obtained a direct verdict on behalf of a pediatric emergency physician and an urgent care physician, six days into trial in Pierce County Superior Court. The plaintiff claimed her minor son suffered permanent physical injuries arising from a delayed diagnosis of bacterial tracheitis. This severe infection resulted in sepsis, intubation, and a multiple-week stay in the hospital. The plaintiff attempted to rely on treating providers as expert support for her case, but the defense successfully argued to exclude the providers for that use. After the plaintiff presented testimony from her sole expert witness, the defense argued that the plaintiff failed to show that different care would have resulted in an earlier diagnosis, or changed the course or outcome of the infection. The judge entered a dismissal by directed verdict before the plaintiff even completed her case in chief.
Defense Verdict for Jeff Burnham and Miranda Aye
Jeff Burnham and Miranda Aye successfully defended a hospital in a nine-day jury trial in Whatcom County. The plaintiff alleged that that he was given an excess of morphine for pain during his admission to the hospital. The plaintiff claimed that he was not properly monitored and suffered medication/sleep apnea-related respiratory distress. He claimed this resulted in hypoxia and brain damage, specifically with a loss of short-term memory. He asked for $6.9 million dollars. The defense argued that all care provided by the hospital was within the standard of care and disputed the cause of the plaintiff's short-term memory issues. The defense argued that the plaintiff never suffered from hypoxia and instead, his memory issues were due to pre-existing complications with sleep apnea and alcohol abuse. The jury concluded that the defendant did not violate the standard of care and returned a defense verdict.
Miranda Aye Successfully Defends Hospital in Arbitration
Miranda Aye obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a hospital which was accused of negligently allowing a patient to fall. The plaintiff was recovering post-operatively in the hospital when he abruptly rose from bed and loss consciousness. The plaintiff fell forward and broke two of his front teeth. The plaintiff claimed he was reaching for his emesis basin, which was not within reach, and that the nurses failed to properly educate him on safe fall prevention measures, per the hospital's protocol. Ms. Aye argued that all necessary items were within reach, and that the nurses met the standard of care and followed all protocols. The arbitrator returned a defense verdict.
Summary Judgment Dismissal Obtained by Miranda Aye
Miranda Aye successfully argued for the dismissal of a case filed on behalf of a minor plaintiff who alleged that a delay in diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux resulted in the loss of one of her kidneys. Although the plaintiff presented support from national experts on standard of care and causation, the minor plaintiff did not file timely via her parents. The plaintiff argued that the Statute of Repose preserved the claim, and alternatively argued that the legislature's amendment as to the tolling of the Statute of Limitations for minors was unconstitutional. The Court found that the plaintiff's claim was not timely filed and entered summary judgment dismissal of the case.
Directed Verdict for John Graffe and Miranda Aye
John Graffe and Miranda Aye obtained a direct verdict on behalf of a pediatric emergency physician and an urgent care physician, six days into trial in Pierce County Superior Court. The plaintiff claimed her minor son suffered permanent physical injuries arising from a delayed diagnosis of bacterial tracheitis. This severe infection resulted in sepsis, intubation, and a multiple-week stay in the hospital. The plaintiff attempted to rely on treating providers as expert support for her case, but the defense successfully argued to exclude the providers for that use. After the plaintiff presented testimony from her sole expert witness, the defense argued that the plaintiff failed to show that different care would have resulted in an earlier diagnosis, or changed the course or outcome of the infection. The judge entered a dismissal by directed verdict before the plaintiff even completed her case in chief.
Defense Verdict for Jeff Burnham and Miranda Aye
Jeff Burnham and Miranda Aye successfully defended a hospital in a nine-day jury trial in Whatcom County. The plaintiff alleged that that he was given an excess of morphine for pain during his admission to the hospital. The plaintiff claimed that he was not properly monitored and suffered medication/sleep apnea-related respiratory distress. He claimed this resulted in hypoxia and brain damage, specifically with a loss of short-term memory. He asked for $6.9 million dollars. The defense argued that all care provided by the hospital was within the standard of care and disputed the cause of the plaintiff's short-term memory issues. The defense argued that the plaintiff never suffered from hypoxia and instead, his memory issues were due to pre-existing complications with sleep apnea and alcohol abuse. The jury concluded that the defendant did not violate the standard of care and returned a defense verdict.
Congratulations to our 2012 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!
The firm proudly congratulates John Graffe, Rando Wick and Donna Moniz for their selection as 2012 Super Lawyers, and Phil de Maine, Heath Fox and Brian Waters for their selection as 2012 Rising Stars by Washington Super Lawyers and Seattle Met Magazine.