 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Coe v. Wardle7/31/2000
in the state of Washington, acting in the same or similar circumstances,' and that '{s}uch failure was a proximate cause of the injury complained of.' Dr. Hansen characterized the procedures that Dr. Wardle performed on Coe as 'compensating operations,' which 'tend to get rid of the visible deformity in the toe, but do not deal with the underlying problem.' However, he stated that these operations 'have been common practice in both the orthopaedic and podiatry communities for many years,' and he did not state or imply that Wardle performed the procedures incorrectly. Rather, he stated that '{l}engthening the gastrocnemius or heel cord and correcting the alignment and stability of the first metatarsal have become standard procedures in both the podiatric and orthopaedic communities in this region over the past 15 years,' and concluded that Wardle fell below the standard of care because he did not perform these procedures on Coe. Thus, Dr. Hansen simply stated that 'there are always different schools of thought on how a certain foot problem should be addressed,' then described two commonly accepted methods of treatment for Coe's problem and opined that Dr. Wardle should have chosen one over the other. Given that Dr. Hansen acknowledged that both choices are 'common' or 'standard' practice, the affidavit does not adequately explain what the appropriate standard of care should have been.
Furthermore, medical expert testimony must be based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty. 'Testimony reflecting only a personal opinion or testimony of experts that they would have followed a different course of treatment than that of the defendant is insufficient to establish a standard of care against which a jury must measure a defendant's performance, since the fact finder may not be given the choice of choosing between two standards.' Dr. Hansen's affidavit does not indicate whether his opinions are based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty or are merely his personal opinion. The affidavit states that Dr. Wardle's treatment fell below standards, but did not elaborate on these alleged standards or explain the basis for his opinion in this respect. The affidavit simply sets forth Dr. Hansen's personal choice of treatment for Coe's condition, which is insufficient to demonstrate medical certainty. Because the affidavit of Dr. Hansen did not establish that Dr. Wardle breached the duty of care of a reasonably prudent podiatrist, or that the care provided caused the harm, summary judgment was appropriate.
AFFIRMED.
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.
|
|