 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allen v. General Electric Co.12/23/1999
his burden of proving any material facts remain regarding the application of the discovery rule. Moreover, reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion from this evidence: Mr. Allen should have discovered or did discover the facts underlying his claims within the limitation period. Ruffer v. St. Frances Cabrini Hosp., 56 Wn. App. 625, 628, 784 P.2d 1288, review denied, 114 Wn.2d 1023 (1990) (when reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion on the facts, they may be decided as a matter of law). Mr. Allen's L&I;claim in 1989 cited the G.E. work environment as the basis for his injury . Mr. Allen's comments in 1990 show his knowledge of his co-workers' lawsuit based upon similar facts. Mr. Allen cannot merely offer conclusory argument that he did not know the essential facts. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court correctly applied the discovery rule when granting summary judgment to G.E.
CONCLUSION
We hold the trial court did not err when granting summary judgment to G.E. The court correctly decided no material facts remained preventing summary judgment. The court correctly chose and applied RCW 4.16.080(2) together with the discovery rule before concluding that Mr. Allen's complaint was time barred.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
Brown, J.
WE CONCUR:
Schultheis, C.J.
Sweeney, 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.
|
|