 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Coe v. Wardle7/31/2000
To prevail on a defense motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff in a medical malpractice case must meet the statutorily mandated burden of proof. Because the affidavit provided by Coe's expert medical witness fails to meet this standard, and because the affidavit did not affirmatively demonstrate that the expert was competent to testify to the matters therein, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Dr. Wardle.
Janet Coe consulted Dr. Darren J. Wardle, a podiatrist, regarding a condition of severe bunions on both her feet. Coe had previously been treated for the same condition by another doctor in Spokane. Dr. Wardle performed surgery on Coe's feet on two separate occasions, and did several postoperative checks after each surgery. Wardle claims that Coe was improving and doing well following each surgery, but Coe contends that her condition continued to deteriorate and that her feet remained extremely painful.
Coe noticed that her bunions and foot malformations were returning despite Dr. Wardle's surgeries. She then sought consultation with Dr. Sigvard T. Hansen, Chief of Orthopaedics at Harborview Medical Center's Foot, Ankle & Amputee Clinic. Dr. Hansen felt that Coe continued to suffer discomfort because Dr. Wardle's surgeries had failed to address the underlying cause of Coe's problems. In Dr. Hansen's opinion, Coe will require extensive reconstructive surgery to correct and perform the procedures that should have been done in the first place.
Coe brought a medical malpractice claim against Dr. Wardle, and Dr. Wardle filed a motion for summary judgment. After some delay, Coe submitted her opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment along with her own declaration and affidavit of Dr. Hansen. The trial court granted Dr. Wardle's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Dr. Wardle had demonstrated that Coe lacked competent evidence to support an essential element of her claim, and that Coe had failed to rebut Dr. Wardle's showing through competent expert testimony because she had not presented sufficient competent expert evidence to demonstrate that Dr. Wardle failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent podiatrist. Coe appeals.
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On appeal of summary judgment, the standard of review is de novo, with the appellate court performing the same inquiry as the trial court. The moving party has the initial burden of showing an absence of material fact. This burden can be met by showing that there is an absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's case. In this situation, the moving party is not required to support the motion by affidavits or other materials negating the opponent's claim. If the moving defendant meets this showing, then the burden shifts to the nonmoving plaintiff to 'make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'
Coe argues that the affidavit of Dr. Hansen, an orthopedic surgeon, is competent evidence because it clearly establishes his expertise, medical certainty and knowledge in both the podiatric and osteopathic communities. Wardle contends that the affidavit does not constitute competent evidence because it failed to affirmatively demonstrate that Dr. Hansen was qualified to testify as an expert regarding the standard of care for podiatrists.
An affidavit must show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. 'The general rule i
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|