OUTCOME: Summary judgment of dismissal with prejudice
Plaintiff brought multiple claims against an OB/GYN, including claims for medical negligence, violation of the CPA, assault and battery, and outrage. All but the assualt and battery claims were dismis...sed in partial summary judgment. The defendant doctor passed away, and his estate brought a summary judgment motion based on the Dead Man Statute. The trial court in Pierce County granted summary judgment of dismissal with prejudice.
Medical malpractice
Foley v. Physical Therapy Corporation
Feb 22, 2012
OUTCOME: Dismissal with prejudice.
Plaintiff alleged medical negligence against a physical therapist in regards to the treatment of his back and neck injury. The case was dismissed in lieu of a pending motion for summary judgment.
Car accident
Desta v. Cortes
Jan 10, 2012
OUTCOME: Dismissal
Plaintiff pedestrian alleged that she was struck by a vehicle registered to the defendant while she was jaywalking to catch her bus. Plaintiff also alleged that the driver sped away, and that she sust...ained substantial personal injuries. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on multiple provisions of CR 12(b), and plaintiff stipulated to dismiss her case.
Medical malpractice
Metje v. Emergency Physicians Corporation
Nov 10, 2011
OUTCOME: Defense Verdict
Plaintiff alleged medical negligence and common law negligence against emergency room physicians for failing to adequately monitor psychiatric patient who attacked the patient plaintiff. Plaintiff all...eged that the stress from the attempted sexual assault caused a miscarriage approximately a month later.
Mr. Norman aided lead trial attorney for this matter.
Appeals
In re D.F.F.
Jul 14, 2011
OUTCOME: Affirmed.
Facts: Woman with mental disabilities, D.F.F., was involuntarily committed under RCW 71.05. Pursuant to a superior court rule promulgated by the State Supreme Court, MPR 1.3, all proceedings under th...at statute are by default closed to the public absent a request to open by the committee or his or her counsel.
After being committed, D.F.F. appealed the order of commitment, and argued that the rule violated Article I, Section 10 of the State Constitution, which requires that "justice be administered openly." The Court of Appeals at Division I agreed, ruling that MPR 1.3 was unconstitutional because it precluded a court from making the individualized determination of constitutionality pursuant to Seattle Times v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30, 649 P.2d 716 (1982), that is necessary for any attempt to seal court documents or close court proceedings. See In re D.F.F., 144 Wn. App. 214, 183 P.3d 302 (2008).
The State appealed, and review was granted by the Supreme Court in 2008. Several newspaper associations sponsored an Amicus Brief authored by Allied Law Group, LLC, to enforce the open court mandate of Article I, Section 10.
Oral argument was held in September of 2009.
The State Supreme Court issued its opinion on July 14, 2011. The Supreme Court affirmed Division I's decision, concluding that MPR 1.3 is unconstitutional because it automatically closed certain court proceedings without the requisite constitutional showing.
Medical malpractice
Serrano v. Nurse
Jul 05, 2011
OUTCOME: Dismissal with prejudice.
Plaintiff patient alleged medical negligence, outrage, and medical battery against nurse for ordering restraints when she was admitted for psychiatric care. In lieu of a pending motion for summary jud...gment, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims.
Real estate
Chen v. Chin
Jun 13, 2011
OUTCOME: Defense award in mandatory arbitration.
Plaintiff was buyer in a residential purchase and sale agreement for a home in Newcastle. Plaintiff, however, gave the name of her son as the buyer, despite not having authority to purchase in his nam...e. Plaintiff later demanded a "kickback" credit for the purchase, which was not a term to the purchase agreement. Plaintiff later canceled the purchase and then sued to recover the deposit, and alleging that the real estate broker committed negligence. After an arbitration hearing, the arbitrator agreed with the defense, giving plaintiff an award of $0.
Appeals
City of Lakewood v. David Koenig
Mar 29, 2011
OUTCOME: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded to trial court
Facts: David Koenig made several requests for public records to the City of Lakewood in 2007. The City provides some of the records, but redacts some of records, including driver’s license numbers. ...The City later sends Koenig requests for confirmation that it has fully responded to his requests. Koenig does not respond, and the City brings a suit against Koenig under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act seeking a declaration from the Court that it has complied with Koenig’s requests. City propounds discovery inquiries to Koenig prior to Koenig filing his Answer, including queries related to his marital status, prior litigation history, and criminal history. Koenig objects to the discovery requests, arguing that agencies are precluded from making such inquiries to requestors under the PRA. Parties hold a discovery conference and narrow the only legal issue in the case to whether driver’s license numbers are exempt, as well as the scope of the City’s discovery. City then moves to compel on the discovery inquiries related to Koenig’s prior litigation, arguing that it was relevant to penalties. Court grants City’s Motion to Compel Discovery, and Koenig successfully sought Discretionary Review, where the Court Commissioner largely agreed with Koenig’s arguments.
Issues: Koenig’s main argument is that agency cannot propound discovery (especially discovery seeking irrelevant material) to a requestor because it treats requestors different and that agency liability and penalty determinations should be bifurcated in two separate proceedings. The City’s justification for bringing its suit is that Koenig intentionally delays filing PRA lawsuits until the last day to maximize his penalties, and that the City should be entitled to preemptively sue to stem those penalties.
Division II accepted discretionary review.
Amicus Curaie, including Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, Washington Coalition For Open Government, Washington Newspaper Publisher's Association, Tacoma News Tribune, Tri-City Herald, and Wenatchee World, filed an Amicus Brief on September 22, 2010, arguing against the City's position.
Division II of the Court of Appeals concluded that an agency does have the ability to conduct discovery, but ruled in favor of Koenig, concluding that the trial court erred in granting the City's motion to compel when the discovery sought was not seeking material likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Medical malpractice
Mills-Gesch v. Hospital
Mar 04, 2011
OUTCOME: Dismissal with prejudice
Plaintiffs alleged that surgeon was negligent in performing total thyroidectomy and paratracheal neck dissection, and that hospital was vicariously liable for such negligence. After filing a motion fo...r summary judgment, plaintiff agreed to dismiss her case against the hospital with prejudice.
Appeals
Yakima Herald-Republic v. Yakima County
Jan 13, 2011
OUTCOME: Reversed and remanded
Facts: Newspaper sought sealed court documents related to the County expenditure of over $2 million of county funds to pay for defense of two capital murder suspects under the Public Records Act. The... records sought included spreadsheets, and other billing and expense records--most of which were circulated to county executive offices. The expenditures were approved by a judge functioning in an administrative capacity and sealed at the request of defense counsel.
Trial court granted injunction under the PRA precluding disclosure of the records, concluding that Nast v. Michels, 107 Wn.2d 307, 730 P.2d 54 (1986) stands for the principle that courts are not "agencies" under the PRA, and thus court records are not attainable under that statute.
Herald sought direct review, which was granted.
Result: Court held documents held by courts were not subject to Public Records Act, but that court-appointed attorney invoice records are subject to PRA disclosure
