 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Savoy v. Tse3/3/2000
wo or three hours after the land slip.
Here, Savoy attempted to rinse his mouth with Peridex and in the process felt something foreign in his mouth, later identified as an irrigator tip. Unlike Wilson, he did not swallow or ingest the Peridex or the foreign object. In fact, he spat out the Peridex and the foreign object. He testified that he did not have any bleeding. The medical record indicates that there were no cuts, lacerations, oral trauma, or punctures in the mouth.
Savoy further testified he was concerned that he may have been exposed to HIV and hepatitis. But he did not respond to or act on his claimed fear until some three weeks after the incident and only upon his attorney's suggestion. Moreover, Savoy tested negative for HIV and hepatitis. Similar to the plaintiff in Cherry, Savoy has failed to show that his emotional distress resulted from any actual or possible direct physical invasion. Savoy fails to demonstrate the existence of facts supporting a finding by a jury of actual or possible direct physical invasion under the stricter invasion standard. Breach of Professional Duty
Savoy further contends that his claim is not an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress and instead is an action for breach of professional duty as described in RCW 7.70.040(1). To prove negligence, Savoy is required to show that his injury resulted from the defendant's failure to follow the accepted standard of care. RCW 7.70.030(1). The necessary elements of proof are (1) failure to exercise that degree of care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent doctor in the profession to which he belongs in the State of Washington acting in the same or similar circumstances, and (2) proximate cause of an injury . RCW 7.70.040.
Generally, expert testimony is required to establish the prudence of the practice questioned and to show causation. Morinaga v. Vue, 85 Wn. App. 822, 831-32, 935 P.2d 637, review denied, 133 Wn.2d 1012 (1997) (citations omitted). If the doctor establishes that the plaintiff lacks competent expert testimony, the doctor is entitled to summary judgment. Morinaga, 85 Wn. App. at 832. Savoy fails to produce any expert testimony establishing the standard of care or showing causation. He also fails to produce any affidavits, declarations, additional medical evidence, or additional testimony in support of his claim or the elements.
Construing the facts found in the record, and all reasonable inferences in favor of Savoy, summary judgment was appropriate. Affirmed.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Houghton, J.
We concur: Seinfeld, P.J.
Hunt, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|