 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hansen v. Rogers12/29/2003
After a jury trial and defense verdict in a medical malpractice suit, Victoria Hansen appeals the summary dismissal of several claims asserted in her complaint and the denial of her post-verdict motion to obtain juror contact information. Finding her appeal to be frivolous, we affirm and award attorney fees.
Dr. Gary Rogers was, for many years, Victoria Hansen's health care provider for gynecological and obstetric services. Hansen had two consecutive abnormal pap smears in 1996 and 1997. Dr. Rogers identified precancerous cells on Hansen's cervix in 1997.
Dr. Rogers recommended to Hansen that she undergo a hysterectomy to treat her medical condition. Prior to the surgery, Dr. Rogers explained the risks and possible complications of the procedure. Hansen signed a consent form and Dr. Rogers performed the surgery removing her uterus.
Following surgery, Hansen suffered complications from the hysterectomy. Hansen later filed an action against Dr. Rogers on claims of medical negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, patient abandonment, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and violations of the Consumer Protection Act, the Insurance Act, and the Uniform Health Care Information Act.
Hansen's claims are based on allegations that Dr. Rogers misrepresented her condition as cancerous to her and her health insurer, that he failed to explain other treatment options, that before proceeding to surgery he failed to obtain a second opinion as required by his contract with the insurer, that Dr. Rogers was motivated in these acts by financial considerations, and that he failed to provide Hansen with her complete medical records.
Pretrial, the court dismissed all Hansen's claims on summary judgment except for medical negligence and lack of informed consent. These two remaining issues went to a jury trial, resulting in a defense verdict. In this appeal, Hansen primarily seeks reinstatement of the claims dismissed on summary judgment.
When reviewing an order for summary judgment, we engage in the same inquiry as the trial court, and will affirm summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wilson Court Ltd. Partnership v. Tony Maroni's, Inc., 134 Wn.2d 692, 698, 952 P.2d 590 (1998); CR 56(c). All facts and reasonable inferences must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all questions of law are reviewed de novo. Wilson, 134 Wn.2d at 698. Questions of fact may be determined on summary judgment as a matter of law where reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion. Alexander v. County of Walla Walla, 84 Wn. App. 687, 692, 929 P.2d 1182 (1997).
LOCAL RULE ON PAGE LIMITS
Dr. Rogers initially contends that this court is precluded from considering certain arguments raised by Hansen because although raised below, they were raised on pages of her pretrial briefs that were stricken by the trial court. The trial court was enforcing a local page limit. A King County Local Rule on summary judgment provides that the length of moving and opposition memoranda shall not exceed 24 pages without authority of the court:
(1) Scope of Rule. This rule governs all motions for summary judgment.
(2) Argument. All summary judgment motions shall be decided after oral argument, unless waived by the parties. The length of oral argument shall be determined by the assigned judge.
(3) Dates of Filing and Hearing. All papers shall be served and filed and all hearings shall be set in conformance with the requirements of LR 7(b)(3), except that the deadlines for moving, opposition, a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|