 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hutchinson v. Sacred Heart Medical Center9/19/2000
on for summary judgment, the superior court did not have Mrs. Hutchinson's medical records before it. What the court had before it was Ms. Swiggum's statement--'The events that are related in Mrs. Hutchinson's declaration are not reflected in the medical records. Therefore the opinion I am expressing in this declaration is based upon the hypothetical assumption that the information in Mrs. Hutchinson's declaration is true, and the medical records are inaccurate.' It is apparent that Ms. Swiggum had reviewed the medical records. In context, it appears likely that the unrecorded events to which Ms. Swiggum refers are what transpired between Mrs. Hutchinson and the two nurses who allegedly administered morphine to Mrs. Hutchinson.
Here, a jury could believe Mrs. Hutchinson and determine that the events stated in her declaration happened as she described them. A jury could further conclude that the nursing staff elected not to record them. This being the case, it was permissible for Ms. Swiggum to base her opinion upon the assumption that the information in Mrs. Hutchinson's declaration is true and the medical records are inaccurate.
Finally, Sacred Heart asks that Ms. Swiggum's declaration be stricken because it is based upon information contained in Mrs. Hutchinson's declaration for which Mrs. Hutchinson lacks personal knowledge. Specifically, Sacred Heart points to Mrs. Hutchinson's statements that she is allergic to morphine and that she was administered morphine by the Sacred Heart nurses.
In Dennis v. McArthur, 23 Wn.2d 33, 158 P.2d 644 (1945), overruled on other grounds by, State v. Davis, 41 Wn.2d 535, 250 P.2d 548 (1952), the issue on appeal was whether the plaintiff could testify that the treatment employed by her 'sanipractic physician' invaded her uterus. This testimony was important in determining whether the defendant was responsible for producing an abortion during the plaintiff's pregnancy. About that testimony, the Supreme Court stated, 'we are not prepared to say that it falls in the realm of things beyond common experience of women in general, or requires special knowledge, skill, or training not possessed by women generally.' Id. at 37. Likewise, an allergy is a medical condition that may come within the realm of common or personal experience. Knowledge regarding the existence or non-existence of an allergy comes not only from medical diagnosis but also from personal experience. Ms. Swiggum's declaration should not be stricken because it is based upon information for which Mrs. Hutchinson lacks personal knowledge.
Sacred Heart argues that Mrs. Hutchinson lacks personal knowledge that she was administered morphine by the Sacred Heart nurses. The hospital argues that this information is based upon statements attributed by Mrs. Hutchinson to Sacred Heart's nurses. Sacred Heart maintains that these statements are inadmissible hearsay.
At oral argument, Sacred Heart's attorneys conceded that the hospital records document that Mrs. Hutchinson was administered morphine. In her declaration, Ms. Swiggum states that she reviewed the hospital records. As an expert medical witness, Ms. Swiggum may base her opinion upon the information contained in Mrs. Hutchinson's medical records. ER 703; 5B Karl B. Tegland, Washington Practice, Evidence sec. 703.1 (4th ed. 1999).
Reversed and remanded.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
Kurtz, C.J.
WE CONCUR:
Schultheis, J.
Sweeney, J.
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.
|
|