 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Winbun v. Moore8/30/1999
r summary Judgement. Before trial, one of Winbun's experts, Dr. Mize Connor, stated that it was "inconceivable" to him how anyone could review Winbun's hospital records and not conclude that Dr. Epstein had breached the standard of care. Clerk's Papers at 455. At trial, Dr. Connor opined that "the level of negligen{ce} that Dr. Epstein exhibited here and his blatant, non- recognition for inquiry into the severity of Mrs. Winbun's illness makes this, I think, without question, a grossest case of failure to meet the standard of care that I have run across." Report of Proceedings at 118-19. Dr. Connor further opined that "{a} second year medical student would have been sent back to college had he written orders like this for a patient in Mrs. Winbun's condition." Id. at 89.
Winbun, who was heavily sedated when she was in the hospital, testified that she remembered few details from April 19 and 20, 1993. She also testified that she thought Dr. Gonzalez was a "saint in my life" and that "Dr. Epstein was right underneath because he helped save me that day at surgery." Id. at 1157.
At the close of Winbun's case and again at the close of trial, Dr. Epstein moved for a directed verdict on the statute of limitations issue. The trial court denied both motions.
Sometime before the case was submitted to the jury, Winbun settled with Dr. Hill and Highline Community Hospital.
In a special verdict, the jury found that Winbun and her husband suffered $1,346,049.89 in total damages and that Dr. Epstein's negligence proximately caused 60% of those damages. The jury also found that Winbun neither discovered nor with due diligence reasonably should have discovered the factual basis of her cause of action against Dr. Epstein more than one year before she filed suit against Dr. Epstein. Clerk's Papers at 345. The trial court then entered Judgement for Winbun and her husband in the amount of $807,629.93, plus statutory attorney fees and costs. Dr. Epstein appeals, contending, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict based on the expiration of the statute of limitations.
DISCUSSION
Under RCW 4.16.350(3), a professional negligence claim against a health care provider absent "proof of fraud, intentional concealment, or the presence of a foreign body not intended to have a therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect" must be brought (1) within three years of the alleged injury -causing act or omission, or (2) within one year from the time the plaintiff discovers or with due diligence reasonably should have discovered that the injury was caused by the act or omission, whichever is later. Gunnier v. Yakima Heart Ctr., Inc., 134 Wn.2d 854, 861-64, 953 P.2d 1162 (1998). "One who has notice of facts sufficient to prompt a person of average prudence to inquire is deemed to have notice of all facts which reasonable inquiry would disclose." Enterprise Timber, Inc. v. Washington Title Ins. Co., 76 Wn.2d 479, 483, 457 P.2d 600 (1969); accord Green v. A.P.C. (Am. Pharm. Co.), 136 Wn.2d 87, 96, 960 P.2d 912 (1998). The purpose of the two alternative limitations periods is to encourage the prompt filing of claims which, in turn, increases the likelihood of accurate determinations and removes the burdens of threatened litigation without precluding meritorious claims based on facts that an injured party could not have reasonably discovered before the standard statutory limitations period expired. See Ruth v. Dight, 75 Wn.2d 660, 665, 453 P.2d 631 (1969), abrogated by RCW 4.16.350(3); Beard v. King Co., 76 Wn. App. 863, 867-68, 889 P.2d 501 (1995).
In this case, it is undisputed that Winbun filed her cause
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.
|
|