Graffe Achieves Defense Verdict for Hospital. 
In February 2008, John Graffe successfully defended a hospital in a three week trial in Whatcom County. Plaintiff was 20 years old when she delivered her first child, via emergency C-section.  Anesthesia was not present, so the surgery was performed under local anesthetic. At birth, the baby had a tight single nuchal cord, poor tone and no respiratory effort.  She and her husband alleged that a delay in performing the C-section caused the unfortunate outcome of cerebral palsy and significant developmental delay in their newborn son. With excellent expert support for the defense, Mr. Graffe was able to convince the jury that the nurses followed the standard of care during labor and delivery and that the outcome was not the result of any negligence. The defense verdict was unanimous for the hospital and the doctor.  The plaintiff alleged nearly $20 million of damage.

Philip deMaine became a partner in the firm effective January 1, 2008. 
He will continue to represent healthcare providers in malpractice and licensing matters, as well as represent clients in general insurance defense claims and employment litigation.

In January 2008, Philip deMaine obtained a defense award at an arbitration in Mason County . 
The case involved a claim for personal injuries allegedly resulting from a motor vehicle accident.  Plaintiff claimed her vehicle was rear-ended by the defendant’s vehicle anywhere from 15 to 35 miles per hour, but there was no property damage to her vehicle.  She sought chiropractic treatment from two chiropractors following the accident.  The defendant driver insisted there was never any contact between the two vehicles and that an accident never occurred.  The testimony of a fact witness tended to support the defendant’s version of the facts.  For a variety of evidentiary reasons, Mr. deMaine was able to successfully exclude a number of proposed exhibits and witnesses plaintiff attempted to use at the arbitration hearing.  Not only did the arbitrator award a defense verdict, but he also determined plaintiff filed a frivolous lawsuit and awarded all of defendant’s attorney’s fees.

 deMaine and Neal Obtain Substantial Judgment for Business Partner. 
In a six day trial in December 2007, Philip M. deMaine, assisted by Wade Neal, successfully obtained a $577,000 judgment in favor of their client, a co-owner of a construction business.  The defendant had asked the plaintiff to partner with him in an effort to save a prior business that owed significant tax debts.  The plaintiff was asked to take a large pay cut and was promised a future share of revenue.  During the life of the new business, the defendant treated the business as his own and misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars from the business as “draws” or “shareholder loans.”  The defendant withdrew the funds over a period of 2 ½ years, without repayment.  The defendant denied in full that he had ever agreed to make the plaintiff a partner or co-owner.  Mr. deMaine was able to show substantial evidence of partnership despite defendant’s contrary position.  The case also involved significant motion practice on both sides.  Mr. Neal was the primary author the vast majority of the motions.  Mr. Neal even drafted a winning motion to exclude the defendant's expert forensic accountant only days before trial based on untimely disclosure.  Mr. Neal also assisted in review and analysis of discovery materials.  Defendant also attempted to argue that, after considering the issue of offset, plaintiff actually owed money to the partnership.  This argument failed and plaintiff prevailed on claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff also prevailed on a claim for unpaid wages under his employment at the prior corporation owned solely by defendant.  The court pierced the corporate veil and found the defendant personally liable for all claims. The Court also awarded damages on the wage loss claim and reasonable attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest.

Graffe and Johnson Obtain Defense Verdict for Orthopedic Surgeon. 
In November 2007, John Graffe and Clarke Johnson successfully defended an orthopedic surgeon in King County. Following a diagnosis of right L3-4 reherniation with lateral gutter stenosis, the defendant orthopedic surgeon performed anterior/posterior L3-4, L4-5 fusion surgery on the plaintiff.  Following the surgery, physicians and nurses frequently checked the pulses in her feet which led them to believe there was adequate blood flow.   Later that day, it was clear that her blood flow was inadequate to her lower extremities; she was diagnosed with an occluded aorta, and possible post-traumatic aortic dissection.  She had ongoing problems and subsequent surgeries, including a through-knee amputation. The plaintiff later died, allegedly from MRSA pneumonia.  Plaintiff alleged that there were signs and symptoms of vascular insufficiency that should have resulted in earlier intervention that would have avoided the leg amputation, development of MRSA, and death.  After almost three weeks of intense expert testimony from both sides, the jury returned a defense verdict.

Wick and Holmes Win Dismissal Pursuant to Frye. 
In September 2007, Rando Wick obtained summary judgment dismissal of a claim in which plaintiff was seeking $10,000,000.  The pleadings were drafted by Kim Holmes after extensive research of national case law that has interpreted the Frye decision. The case involved allegations that two Virginia Mason physicians violated the standard of care by prescribing prednisone to a lupus patient, causing avascular necrosis. The plaintiff had obtained an expert witness from Texas with over 30 years of experience who supported the plaintiff’s case. Despite expert support to validate his standard of care and causation arguments, the plaintiff’s case was dismissed following Mr. Wick’s oral argument on Virginia Mason’s motion summary judgment. The defense persuaded the Court that current medical science did not support the theory that prednisone, in the amounts prescribed by Virginia Mason’s physicians, has a causal link with the plaintiff’s condition. The Court agreed with Mr. Wick’s argument based on Washington’s interpretation of the Frye doctrine and dismissed the plaintiff’s case in its entirety.  Mr. Wick had hired several nationally renowned experts who provided sworn testimony that the plaintiff’s expert’s opinion had no support in current medical science.  Mr. Wick, at the plaintiff’s expert’s deposition had previously shown that the plaintiff could present no medical literature to support the plaintiff’s theory.   

Donna Moniz Secures Defense Verdict. 
Donna Moniz successfully defended an emergency group, two emergency physicians and a physician assistant before a 12 person jury in King County in February and March 2007. The plaintiff alleged delay in diagnosis on the first day of care and treatment below standard on the second visit of a 43 year-old woman presenting with knee pain who developed necrotizing fasciitis. She suffered extensive tissue loss in her leg and complete blindness. Ms. Moniz helped the jury understand the devastating nature of this disease, the reasons why evaluation was appropriate and how the treatment provided met applicable emergency care standards. She also persuaded the jury that the underlying disease caused the injuries despite the excellent care by her clients. The verdict was unanimous for the defense.

Johnson Successfully Defends Emergency Physician
In February 2007, Clarke Johnson successfully defended an emergency physician in a medical malpractice case in Thurston County Superior Court. The 18 year-old plaintiff had been skateboarding with his friends on a plywood ramp propped on the shovel of a tractor. In the process, the plaintiff fell on his buttocks and impaled himself on a 1" diameter, 10" long steel rod. The defendant emergency physician took a history from the plaintiff, examined his wound, and concluded he had suffered a 1½” laceration of his buttock and discharged the patient. The patient was instructed to either see his primary care doctor or return to the emergency department in two days. Four days later, the patient returned to another emergency room, having developed peritonitis in the interim. A CT scan was ordered which showed that the rod had penetrated his buttock and entered the peritoneum to a depth of approximately 10".

The plaintiff alleged the emergency physician was negligent in taking an inadequate history and failing to order a CT scan. The defense argued that given the inaccurate history presented by the patient and the results of the doctor’s physical examination, a CT scan was not required. The plaintiff called an expert in emergency medicine and also called the treating general surgeon, who served both as an expert witness on standard of care and causation. Mr. Johnson countered with an emergency physician who was also board certified in infectious disease, as well as a general surgeon. The jury was out for a full day before returning a 10 to 2 defense verdict!

Burnham Garners Jury Verdict for Client
Partner Jeffrey Burnham started 2007 off with a jury verdict in favor of his client, an employer in a hotly contested, medically complex workers compensation case. The employer had sought for seven years to close an accepted claim for a minor knee injury and reparative surgery. The former employee blamed the minor injury for not only a claimed aggravation of a degenerative knee joint condition, and leg and foot pain, but morbid obesity and depression, as well. He has claimed for several years that he could not work even in a sedentary or “light duty” position. Based on complex medical testimony presented by experts and attending doctors, Mr. Burnham was able to convince the jury that the claimed subsequent conditions were not related to the minor knee injury and that the former employee should have long since been back to work. The Pierce County jury decision thus overturned the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals’ administrative decision.