285 P.3d 873
Wash.2012Background
- Diaz sues for medical malpractice against UWMC, Futran, Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital Association, MCL, and Dr. Kini; settled with UWMC and Futran for $400,000 before trial, leaving Kini and MCL to trial.
- Evidence of the $400,000 settlement with UWMC/Futran was disputed; Diaz moved to exclude it, but trial court admitted it at a later stage.
- Second trial occurred after a deadlocked first trial; during the second trial the court ruled settlement evidence admissible under RCW 7.70.080, though no party actually introduced it.
- Diaz’s attorney mentioned the settlement in opening statement; no settlement evidence was actually offered or admitted; curative instruction was given at Diaz’s request.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court held there was error in applying RCW 7.70.080, but found the error harmless; the proper framework is RCW 4.22.060 and 4.22.070, which supersede RCW 7.70.080, and ER 408 governs admissibility; no new trial is warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was settlement evidence properly admitted under RCW 7.70.080? | Plaiff argued RCW 7.70.080 allowed such evidence. | Defendants argued the statute allowed nonsettling parties to introduce settlement evidence. | No; RCW 7.70.080 misapplied and should not have admitted settlement evidence. |
| Does the proviso to RCW 7.70.080 apply to a previously settling defendant health care provider? | Diaz contends proviso protects confidential settlements even when a provider settles and remains or becomes nonparty. | Defendants contend proviso only applies to current defendant providers and not those who settled. | The proviso applies to defendant health care providers, including those who settled; settling providers retain protection. |
| Do RCW 4.22.060 and 4.22.070 supersede RCW 7.70.080, making the latter inapplicable here? | 4.22.060/4.22.070 provides the framework for settlements and fault allocation, overruling 7.70.080. | 7.70.080 still valid alongside newer statutes; no conflict contemplated. | Yes; 4.22.060 and 4.22.070 supersede 7.70.080 and control, making 7.70.080 inapplicable to this case. |
| Was the settlement error harmless under ER 408 and separation of powers? | Even minimal mention plus curative instruction could taint the trial. | No prejudice; no evidence admitted; instruction curbed potential impact. | Yes, harmless error; no reversal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adcox v. Children’s Orthopedic Hospital & Medical Center, 123 Wn.2d 15 (1993) (RCW 7.70.080 replaces collateral source rule in medical malpractice)
- Washburn v. Beattie Equipment Co., 120 Wn.2d 246 (1992) (settlement amounts ignored under 4.22.070 allocation framework)
- Adcox (same as above), 123 Wn.2d 15 (1993) (illustrates interplay of 4.22.060/4.22.070 with settlements)
- Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Med. Ctr., PS, 166 Wn.2d 974 (2009) (separation of powers; statute must yield to evidentiary rule when in conflict)
- Tunstall v. Bergeson, 141 Wn.2d 201 (2000) (prefer more specific/recent statutes when in conflict)
- Northington v. Sivo, 102 Wn. App. 545 (2000) (settlement evidence deemed harmless; no reversal for prejudice)