 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Altamirano v. Dexter3/13/2001
Chiropractor Kris Dexter treated Sanjuanita Altamirano for injuries she received in a car accident. As part of her treatment, he performed an intrarectal adjustment of her coccyx bone by inserting his finger into her rectum. Claiming he had sexually and intentionally assaulted her when he performed this adjustment, Ms. Altamirano sued Dr. Dexter. She also alleged that he performed the adjustment without her informed consent. The jury returned a defense verdict. Contending it was improper for Dr. Dexter to remove two Hispanic persons from the jury, Ms. Altamirano appeals. She also asserts the court made several prejudicial and erroneous evidentiary rulings. We affirm.
Ms. Altamirano had gone to Dr. Dexter for treatment seven times. On October 24, 1994, the eighth visit, Dr. Dexter performed an 'adverse meningeal tension test' on Ms. Altamirano because of her continued pain. Report of Proceedings (RP) (April 19, 1999) at 55. The results of this test were positive so he recommended an 'intrarectal coccyx meningeal adjustment.' RP at 57. This procedure required her to wear a gown, have her pants and underwear pulled down to her buttocks, and lie on her left side. Dr. Dexter would then insert his finger into her rectum while she bent her head forward and bent and straightened her legs. A female attendant would be present to assist the doctor. He stated the procedure would be uncomfortable. Ms. Altamirano refused at first, but agreed after a second explanation. Dr. Dexter performed the procedure.
Ms. Altamirano disputed Dr. Dexter's version of events. She said the doctor told her to put a robe on and lie on the table. She did not understand that he was going to insert his finger into her rectum. She was very upset during and after this procedure. She never returned to see Dr. Dexter.
Ms. Altamirano filed a complaint against Dr. Dexter, his wife, and the Dexter Clinic of Chiropractic for damages associated with the intrarectal manipulation of the coccyx bone without her consent. The jury returned a verdict for Dr. Dexter. This appeal follows.
Ms. Altamirano first claims Dr. Dexter's use of peremptory challenges to remove two Hispanic jurors violated the equal protection clause. A party generally has the right to exercise peremptory challenges against potential jurors without giving a reason. State v. Evans, 100 Wn. App. 757, 763, 998 P.2d 373 (2000). However, under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), discriminatory challenges against a member of a protected class are prohibited by the equal protection clause. State v. Beliz, Wn. App. , 15 P.3d 683, 687 (2001).
In determining whether a peremptory challenge violates the equal protection clause, courts apply the three-part test developed by Batson. Id. at 687; State v. Burch, 65 Wn. App. 828, 840, 830 P.2d 357 (1992). First, one party must establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. Beliz, 15 P.3d at 687. This burden is met by showing that peremptory challenges were exercised against a member of a protected class, and that it can be inferred the challenge was based upon membership in that class, given all the relevant circumstances. Id. Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the party exercising the challenge to articulate a race-neutral explanation for each challenge. Id. This explanation must be ''clear and reasonably specific.'' Burch, 65 Wn. App. at 840 (quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n.20). The trial court must then determine whether purposeful discrimination occurred. Beliz, 15 P.3d at 687. In making this determination, the court considers the prospective juror's specific responses and demeanor during voir dire. Burch, 65 Wn. App.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|