Keisha Baumgartner v. The Vancouver Clinic, Inc., 48070-1

Plaintiff Keisha Baumgartner sued on behalf of her mother, a Jehovah’s Witness who died from intraoperative blood loss after a robot-assisted renal surgery; she had refused transfusions but accepted intraoperative cell salvage (cell saver).
The cell saver was connected at the start; during conversion to open surgery the suction tubing fell below the sterile field and, according to the cell saver tech (Hendrix), contaminated the reservoir because suction was on.
Hendrix announced the machine was contaminated and refused to replace the tubing and continue use; no blood was processed; the patient lost ~2,500 mL and died postoperatively.
Baumgartner sued multiple defendants; all but anesthesiologist Dr. Mark Morehart (and his group) settled. The trial court granted Morehart summary judgment dismissing Baumgartner’s malpractice claim.
On appeal Baumgartner argued Morehart breached the standard of care by (1) failing to direct the cell saver be set up on standby, and (2) failing to direct replacement of contaminated tubing so the cell saver could continue to be used.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding plaintiff failed to establish the applicable standard of care on both issues under the undisputed facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether anesthesiologist breached standard of care by not directing cell saver be set up on standby	Baumgartner: standby setup is acceptable to Jehovah’s Witnesses and should have been directed for this procedure	Morehart: no evidence the standard of care required standby setup; expert did not tie standby to the standard	Court: No evidence that standard of care required standby; summary judgment affirmed on this claim
Whether anesthesiologist breached standard of care by not directing replacement of contaminated tubing and continued use	Baumgartner: standard requires knowing components can be replaced and to direct replacement rather than abandoning the device	Morehart: technician announced whole machine contaminated; Morehart had no basis to contradict her and thus no obligation to order replacement	Court: Plaintiff’s expert addressed only single-component contamination, not the situation where tech announced entire machine contaminated; Morehart did not breach an identified standard under these facts

Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358 (standard for summary judgment review and admissibility of expert proof in medical malpractice)
Elcon Constr., Inc. v. E. Wash. Univ., 174 Wn.2d 157 (burden shifting in summary judgment)
Grove v. PeaceHealth St. Joseph Hosp., 182 Wn.2d 136 (expert proof required to establish standard of care and proximate cause in malpractice)
Sutton v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10, 180 Wn. App. 859 (summary judgment: when issue of fact is not genuine)