Our law firm did not participate in the lawsuit described in this article.
In a recent opinion the Washington Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a medical malpractice claim in a case in which a doctor admittedly overdosed leukemia medication.[1]
The patient was a young girl. The doctor in question admitted to administering about six times the normal dosage of medication. The doctor admitted this breached the standard of care.
The little girl was diagnosed with conjunctivitis in her eye on the same day she was given the overdose. The little girl’s mother reported that despite a prognosis that she only had six months to live her child did very well until the overdosing incident and that afterwards the child’s condition changed drastically for the worse.
The child’s estate brought a medical malpractice suit. A doctor retained by the child as an expert signed a declaration that “on a more probable than not standard of medical certainty” the overdose “could cause adverse effects.”
The trial court granted a dismissal on summary judgment due to lack of proof of causation. The child’s estate appealed.
The Court of Appeals noted that the “evidence must be more than that the accident ‘might have,’ ‘may have,’ ‘could have,’ or ‘possibly did,’ cause the physical condition.[2]
The Court noted that despite the use of the phrase “more probable than not,” the expert’s declaration does not say the increased dose actually or even probably caused harm. It states only that it is “probable” the high dose “could cause adverse effects.” The Court held that as a matter of law, this is insufficient to create a genuine issue for trial on causation. Therefore, the estate’s claims failed.