Seattle Times Editorial- Debunking a Myth: an epidemic of medical malpractice, not of malpractice lawsuits
Posted: September 23, 2009 Filed under: health care reform, medical malpractice, tort reform Leave a comment »In an editorial in today’s Seattle Times, Patricia Greenstreet a registered nurse and attorney offers a unique perspective on the reality of medical malpractice and “tort reform.” She advocates that the “best way to save money in the health-care system is to prevent injuries from preventable errors in the first place.” According to Greenstreet, “[i]t is by curing the epidemic of preventable medical errors that we can achieve reduced costs for patients and families, but also for the whole system. Let’s focus on what has been proven to reduce costs and improve lives — eliminating preventable errors — rather than giving up fundamental rights as a bargaining chip.”
Certificate of Merit in Medical Malpractice Actions Ruled Unconstitutional
Posted: September 17, 2009 Filed under: Civil Rules, Constitutional law, medical malpractice Leave a comment »In Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center (No. 80888-1), the Washington Supreme Court held RCW 7.70.150 unconstitutional.
The statute required a certificate of merit from a medical expert as a prerequisite to filing a medical malpractice suit. The Court reasoned that RCW 7.70.150 “unduly burdens the right of access to courts and violates the separation of powers.” Further, because it may be impossible to obtain evidence necessary for the certificate of merit prior to discovery, the requirement violates the plaintiff’s right of access to the courts.
Medical malpractice actions are inherently tort actions that are not exempt from the Civil Rules under CR 81(a). Thus, the statute violates the civil rules by (1) requiring more than the notice and pleading required by CR 8; and, (2) requiring the attorney to submit additional verification of the pleadings, in derogation of CR 11.
The Seattle Times published an editorial regarding this decision Unfettered Access to the Courts and a news story Wash. court throws out medical malpractice law.
RCW 4.22.020′s “dependent on support” Definition Broadened
Posted: September 10, 2009 Filed under: dependent for support, RCW 4.22.020, Wrongful Death Leave a comment »In Armantrout v. Carlson, the Washington Supreme Court held that parents who are dependent on a child, may bring a wrongful death claim for under RCW 4.22.020 without actual financial dependence.
RCW 4.22.020 establishes two-tiers of beneficiaries in a wrongful death action. The first tier are the decedent’s spouse or state registered domestic partner and children. Then, if there are no first tier beneficiaries, the action can be maintained for the benefits of parents, sisters, or brother “who may be dependent upon the deceased person for support.” The standard has previously been that the second-tier beneficiaries must be “substantially” dependent on the decedent. The dependence cannot be based on emotional support alone. Phillipedes v. Bernard, 151 Wn.2d 376, 384-85, 88 P.3d 939 (2004). Up until Armantrout, “dependent for support” had required a showing of financial dependence. Here, a child who provided non-economic services to the parent.
At the time of her death, Kristen Armantrout was 18 years old and living at home with her mother who has diabetes and is blind. Kristen cared for her mother and provided services such as driving, reading, and helping with glucose readings and insulin injections. The Court held that “dependent for support” under RCW 4.22.020 need not be based on monetary contributions alone, but instead “allows triers of fact to consider services that have a monetary value when assessing a claimant’s dependency on the decedent for support.”
