 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hutchinson v. Sacred Heart Medical Center9/19/2000
In part, the summary judgment motion is designed to eliminate the need for trials on issues that cannot be factually supported. But it should not be used to eliminate the need for trials on issues where there is a genuine issue of fact. Sacred Heart Medical Center asked the court on summary judgment to dismiss Delores Hutchinson's medical malpractice case because she failed to identify an expert medical witness who could render an admissible opinion regarding the standard of care. In response to the motion, Mrs. Hutchinson filed her declaration that stated the factual basis for her medical malpractice claim and a declaration from a registered nurse licensed in the state of California that contained an opinion that Sacred Heart breached the standard of care. The superior court dismissed Mrs. Hutchinson's lawsuit. The court reasoned that the expert witness's declaration failed to show affirmatively that the expert was competent to testify regarding the standard of care. The court further stated that the expert's opinion was not based on facts established by competent evidence, but was based upon conjecture and speculation. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
After undergoing back surgery at Sacred Heart Medical Center, Delores Hutchinson sued the hospital for medical malpractice, alleging that Sacred Heart and its employees negligently treated her following the surgery. Specifically, she alleged that Sacred Heart gave her morphine even though she told the Sacred Heart staff that she was allergic to the drug. She further alleged that Sacred Heart failed to properly treat her allergic reaction to the morphine and to timely respond to her summons for help.
After Mrs. Hutchinson failed to identify any expert witnesses in her answers to interrogatories or under a case scheduling order, Sacred Heart moved for summary judgment. Sacred Heart argued that 'plaintiffs have no evidence supported by expert testimony that defendant Sacred Heart Medical Center deviated from the standard of care{.}' In support of its motion, Sacred Heart filed an affidavit from its attorney that identified the unanswered interrogatories regarding expert witnesses submitted to Mrs. Hutchinson. In response to the motion for summary judgment, Mrs. Hutchinson filed a sworn declaration from herself and a sworn declaration from a registered nurse licensed in the state of California.
Mrs. Hutchinson declared that following her surgery, a nurse inserted an IV tube into her arm. When she asked the nurse what the nurse was doing, the nurse reported that she was administering morphine. At that point, Mrs. Hutchinson told the nurse that she was allergic to morphine and she further stated that this information should be in her medical records because she believed that she had told her doctor about the allergy.
Sometime later, another nurse entered Mrs. Hutchinson's room and administered a shot in Mrs. Hutchinson's right hip. Again, Mrs. Hutchinson asked the nurse what she was receiving. The nurse replied 'morphine.' According to Mrs. Hutchinson, she immediately informed the nurse that she was allergic to morphine. The nurse responded by stating, 'I can get something to counter act {sic} it, I'll be right back.'
After 10 to 15 minutes, Mrs. Hutchinson began to get hives and her throat got tight. Some time passed and Mrs. Hutchinson rang the nurses' buzzer several times. When nobody responded, Mrs. Hutchinson got up by herself to go to the bathroom. She was in great discomfort. Because the toilet seat was up, Mrs. Hutchinson fell into the toilet. Mrs. Hutchinson called for help, but nobody responded. She grabbed the emergency cord with her toes and summoned help.
Mrs. Hut
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|