Skip to main content
Philip Matthew deMaine

Philip deMaine’s Legal Cases

7 total

  • Simpson v. Thorslund, 151 Wn. App. 276, 287, 211 P.3d 469 (2009).

    Practice Area:
    Contracts and agreements
    Date:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Outcome:
    Client prevailed at trial and on appeal.
    Description:
    Mr. deMaine successfully recovered a judgment in excess of $600,000 for his client for claims involving misappropriation of company funds, unpaid wages, and failure to repay a loan. Plaintiff was awarded substantial attorney's fees. The defendant appealed but the trial court's decision was affirmed.
  • Bolan v. Buck

    Practice Area:
    Medical malpractice
    Outcome:
    Defense verdict for Mr. deMaine's client
    Description:
    In April 2011, Phil de Maine successfully defended a general dentist in a jury trial that lasted more than two weeks. The plaintiff was a highly educated individual who claimed that the defendant dentist caused TMJ/TMD problems, tooth damage, gum recession, bone loss, occlusion/bite problems, and a significant anterior open bite over the course of four years of treatment. The plaintiff alleged that the dentist's treatment caused the need for significant future dental care, including gum surgery, oral surgery, orthodontics, and restorative treatment of a cost of almost $50,000. The defense argued that the care was appropriate, conservative, and did not cause the plaintiff's injuries. The defense also pointed to plaintiff's actions and inactions, as well as actions of other treating providers, as causes of plaintiff's injuries. After only three hours of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous verdict finding that the defendant dentist's treatment complied with the standard of care.
  • Baker v. Nguyen

    Practice Area:
    Medical malpractice
    Outcome:
    Defense verdict for Mr. deMaine's client
    Description:
    After a seven-day jury trial in November 2010, Phil deMaine earned a defense verdict for his client in Tacoma. Mr. deMaine represented a local dentist. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant negligently over-prescribed Ibruprofen to a small, elderly woman after a procedure where 11 teeth were extracted. The plaintiff further argued that the dosing caused a significant gastrointestinal bleed with resulting 40% blood loss, a blood transfusion, and a five-day hospitalization. The plaintiff husband asserted a loss of consortium claim. The defense argued that the dentist provided excellent care, extracted the teeth without complications, and complied with the standard of care with respect to post-operative treatment, including the prescription of pain and anti-inflammatory medications. After just 80 minutes of deliberation, the jury unanimously concluded that the defendant was not negligent.
  • Barrios v. Valencia

    Practice Area:
    Personal injury
    Outcome:
    Defense verdict for Mr. deMaine's client
    Description:
    After a four-day jury trial in September 2010, attorneys Phil deMaine and Wade Neal earned a defense verdict for their client in Vancouver, WA. The attorneys represented a local restaurant owner who employed a restaurant employee to paint his mother's house. The plaintiff, an experienced painter, alleged that the defendant provided inappropriate painting equipment, including a step ladder, to accomplish the painting job. The plaintiff did not allege that the equipment was defective in any way. While painting, the plaintiff fell from the step ladder provided by the defendant, and suffered a left calcaneus fracture, which required reconstructive surgery. Permanency and significant wage loss were claimed. The plaintiff spouse also made a loss of marital consortium claim. The defense argued that the equipment was appropriate for the job, and that the defendant did not instruct the plaintiff on how to use the equipment provided. After deliberating for just one and one-half hours, the jury decided that the defendant was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries.
  • Miller v. Wong

    Practice Area:
    Medical malpractice
    Outcome:
    Defense verdict for Mr. deMaine's client
    Description:
    In a two week jury trial in April 2009, Phil deMaine successfully defended a general dentist against claims that the dentist had failed to diagnose and treat the infection of a partially erupted third molar. The plaintiff alleged failure to obtain informed consent and to properly diagnose moderate to severe pericorinitis and failure to prescribe pre-surgical antibiotics. In addition, the plaintiff alleged failure to provide appropriate follow up care in the week following the extraction of the wisdom tooth. Finally, the plaintiff brought claims against the co-defendant dental clinic (represented by separate counsel) for negligence, though the dentist was clearly the primary defendant at trial. In the days following the extraction, the plaintiff developed a serious infection restricting the plaintiff’s airway and requiring transfer to Harborview Medical Center for a four day admission, emergency intubation and two days in the ICU. The plaintiff was represented at trial by two attorneys. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, the Court granted defendants’ motion for directed verdict on the informed consent claim. Despite several key rulings against the defendants during trial, the jury determined that the dentist complied with the standard of care in his treatment of the plaintiff. The jury concluded that the co-defendant dental clinic did fail to comply with the standard of care but did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s injuries, and the trial resulted in a complete defense verdict.
  • Kepler v. Kepler

    Practice Area:
    Consumer protection
    Outcome:
    Verdict for client in excess of $1.5 million
    Description:
    Mr. deMaine represented a vulnerable elderly married couple who granted their oldest adult child general power of attorney, including all authority to handle their finances. After a week long trial, Mr. deMaine successfully obtained a judgment in excess of $1.5 million dollars. The trial was particularly difficult due to the use of numerous bank accounts. The use of a forensic accountant was necessary to demonstrate the amount of money misappropriated by the defendant.
  • Sarrett v. Zhou

    Practice Area:
    Medical malpractice
    Date:
    May 07, 2012
    Outcome:
    defense verdict for client
    Description:
    Mr. deMaine achieved a defense verdict representing a general cardiologist in a 10-day trial in King County Superior Court in May 2012. The decedent was a 47-year old man who came to the urgent care clinic with complaints of burning, squeezing chest pain radiating into his arm. He was transferred from urgent care to the hospital for observation and further testing. Mr. de Maine's client was asked to perform a cardiac consultation. The estate, and the decedent's wife and three children filed suit, alleging that the testing performed by Mr. de Maine's client was inadequate and that additional testing should have been done to rule out significant coronary artery disease. Two other physicians were also defendants in the case, although Mr. de Maine's client was the "target" defendant. At closing, the plaintiff's attorney requested $7 million in damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of all three defendants.