 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Chang v. Johnson9/15/2003
This is an appeal from a judgment in small claims court. In creating the small claims department, the Legislature intended to 'provide a forum where litigants could obtain speedy, inexpensive and conclusive justice.' State ex rel. McCool v. Small Claims Court, 12 Wn. App. 799, 800-01, 532 P.2d 1191 (1975) (citing RCW 12.40.080, .110). Appeals are rare. Out of some 25,000 annual case filings in small claims courts in Washington in 2002, there were just over 100 appeals to superior court. See Office of the Administrator of the Courts, Caseloads of the Courts of Washington, at 30 (2002). Appeals to the next level are even fewer. It is almost impossible to find a published appellate decision reviewing error alleged to have been committed in a small claims court proceeding by the judge presiding over that proceeding.
The infrequency of appeals is a function of the basic rules that govern the operation of small claims court. First, small claims court is for small claims. As a department of the district court it has 'jurisdiction, but not exclusive, in cases for the recovery of money only if the amount claimed does not exceed four thousand dollars.' RCW 12.40.010.
Second, procedure is informal. Pleadings are not required. A brief statement of the claim, and notice to the defendant, is all that is necessary to obtain a hearing. RCW 12.40.040-.070. 'The hearing and disposition of the actions shall be informal, with the sole object of dispensing speedy and quick justice between the litigants.' RCW 12.40.090. The Rules of Evidence need not be applied. Rule of Evidence 1101(c)(3). There is no right to a jury trial. Wings of the World, Inc. v. Small Claims Court, King County District Court, Northeast Division, 97 Wn. App. 803, 987 P.2d 642 (1999).
Third, the parties usually appear pro se. 'No attorney at law, legal paraprofessional, nor any person other than the plaintiff and defendant, shall appear or participate with the prosecution or defense of litigation in the small claims department without the consent of the judicial officer hearing the case.' RCW 12.40.080(1).
In this case, the claim and counterclaim were not small; the litigation became increasingly formal; and both parties drew extensively on legal expertise. And the ultimate resolution of the case has been neither speedy, nor inexpensive, nor conclusive.
The plaintiff, Margaret Chang, is an inactive attorney. The defendant, Kevin Johnson, is a physician who operates a fertility clinic. Ms. Chang contacted Dr. Johnson's clinic in November 2000 for assistance in becoming pregnant by means of intrauterine insemination with her husband's sperm. The sperm had to be treated prior to insemination to counteract the presence of antisperm antibodies. Based on a successful experience with insemination three years previously, Ms. Chang believed it was critical to have the sperm treated with an immunobead wash.
According to Ms. Chang, she specifically requested that an immunobead wash be used, and was assured by clinic employees that it would be. However, on November 22, 2002, the day the procedure was to take place, the clinic was not prepared to do an immunobead wash and told Ms. Chang the clinic preferred to use a different kind of wash. She proceeded with the insemination in order not to lose the opportunity, but she did not become pregnant. Although she continued as a patient of the clinic through one more ovulation cycle, she was disappointed with her treatment, and switched to another doctor.
According to Dr. Johnson and his employees, no one promised Ms. Chang that any particular kind of wash would be used. Ms. Chang did not pay her final bill for $314.31 that was outstan
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|