Amanda Pitts v. Inland Imaging, LLC
32512-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | May 4, 2017Background
- Amanda and Paul Pitts sued Inland Imaging after one of Amanda's twin fetuses (Taylor) died in utero; plaintiffs alleged Inland negligently read prenatal ultrasounds.
- Early ultrasounds showed a "twin peak" (lambda) sign and radiologists reported a dichorionic diamniotic pregnancy (separate chorions/placentas).
- At delivery, placental and cord findings suggested monochorionic/complex membrane anatomy with tangled cords; plaintiffs claimed misdiagnosis of chorionicity led to Taylor's death.
- Plaintiffs pursued negligence claims including a "lost chance" theory based on an expert's opinion that proper diagnosis would have produced a 90% better chance of survival.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the lost chance theory; after a jury trial on negligence the jury returned a verdict for Inland.
- Plaintiffs appealed, raising challenges to the summary judgment ruling and several trial management and evidentiary rulings (witness exclusions/limitations, videoconference testimony, scope of expert testimony).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of lost-chance claim | Pitts: lost-chance applies because negligence reduced Taylor's chance of survival (expert: 90% lost chance) | Inland: lost-chance inapplicable where negligence is the proximate cause; traditional causation governs when chance >50% | Court: Affirmed summary judgment — lost-chance inapplicable because asserted negligence caused the death (Volk) and plaintiffs' evidence showed >50% lost chance making traditional causation controlling (Dormaier) |
| Exclusion/limitation of two experts (Coffin, Finberg) | Pitts: court excluded/limited witnesses as a discovery sanction without Burnet analysis | Inland: witnesses were identified as rebuttal; limits were appropriate based on trial developments and rebuttal scope | Court: No abuse of discretion — not a Burnet sanction; Coffin had nothing to rebut after dismissal of sonographers; Finberg properly limited to rebuttal topics |
| Failure to admit Dr. Finberg's video testimony (technical setup) | Pitts: denial of anticipated rebuttal testimony prejudiced their case and warranted new trial | Inland: technical failures and delays were plaintiffs' responsibility; court provided time and accommodated setup | Court: No abuse — plaintiffs failed to seek court action when problem arose; trial court reasonably refused further delay; no basis for new trial |
| Admission/scope of defense experts' testimony and cross-examination | Pitts: some defense expert testimony exceeded proper scope or qualification; certain voir dire and cross were improper | Inland: testimony was relevant, within the court's discretion, and/or objections were waived | Court: No reversible error — trial court acted within broad discretion under ER 702, ER 611(b), and evidentiary objections were often untimely or without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Mohr v. Grantham, 172 Wn.2d 844 (Wash. 2011) (recognized loss of chance as a distinct injury and described proof using scientific expert analysis)
- Herskovits v. Group Health Coop. of Puget Sound, 99 Wn.2d 609 (Wash. 1983) (early discussion of lost-chance doctrine and its limits)
- Estate of Dormaier v. Columbia Basin Anesthesia PLLC, 177 Wn. App. 828 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (held lost-chance substitute causation applies only where baseline survival chance ≤50%)
- Volk v. DeMeerleer, 187 Wn.2d 241 (Wash. 2016) (held lost-chance doctrine inapplicable when defendant's negligence is alleged to be the actual cause of death)
- Dunnington v. Virginia Mason Med. Ctr., 187 Wn.2d 629 (Wash. 2017) (affirmed principle that loss-of-chance is relevant where underlying injury likely regardless of negligence)