Kerry J. Taylor v. Alan P. Nohr
74127-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 7, 2016Background
- Kerry J. Taylor sued her dentist, Dr. Alan Nohr, alleging negligence over dental work performed from 2007–2011 (extractions, restorations, and a bridge).
- Taylor designated Dr. Kim Larson as her expert; his deposition initially said he could not link Nohr’s conduct to any injury.
- A week later, a "corrected" deposition/transcript from Dr. Larson asserted that Nohr crowned teeth without documented diagnoses and that this caused damage and pain to Taylor.
- Nohr moved for summary judgment arguing Taylor lacked expert evidence of causation; the trial court considered the corrected testimony but granted summary judgment for Nohr.
- Taylor submitted Nohr’s deposition later, arguing Nohr admitted a charting breach; she contended this supported causation.
- The trial and appellate courts concluded Dr. Larson’s changed testimony was conclusory and Nohr’s deposition did not establish causation; summary judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff produced competent expert evidence of proximate causation | Larson’s corrected testimony: Nohr crowned teeth without documented diagnoses, which caused irreversible damage, pain, and unnecessary treatment | No competent expert links Nohr’s alleged charting breach to any injury; corrected testimony is conclusory and insufficient | Court: Expert’s statements are conclusory, not evidentiary facts; insufficient to create genuine issue on causation — summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether corrected deposition changes may be considered to defeat summary judgment | Taylor argued the corrections should be accepted and create a factual dispute | Nohr argued corrections contradict earlier testimony and remain conclusory | Court considered the corrections but found them inadequate to establish causation; remains insufficient |
| Whether defendant’s own deposition created a triable issue on causation | Taylor pointed to Nohr’s admission that diagnoses should be charted and were not, implying causation | Nohr’s testimony did not address causation; charting failures alone do not prove injury | Court: Nohr’s deposition does not supply causation; charting omission alone insufficient |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate where proximate causation is required in malpractice cases | Taylor argued factual disputes exist over causation and breach | Nohr argued plaintiff lacks expert proof of causation, meeting initial summary judgment burden | Court: In malpractice cases proximate cause requires expert proof; plaintiff failed to present admissible, fact-supported expert causation evidence; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358 (discusses standard and review on summary judgment)
- Young v. Key Pharms., Inc., 112 Wn.2d 216 (plaintiff must produce qualified expert affidavit alleging specific facts on causation once defendant shows lack of expert evidence)
- Grove v. PeaceHealth St. Joseph Hosp., 182 Wn.2d 136 (proximate causation generally requires expert testimony in medical malpractice)
- Grimwood v. Univ. of Puget Sound, Inc., 110 Wn.2d 355 (conclusory affidavits and ultimate facts insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Ruffer v. St. Frances Cabrini Hosp. of Seattle, 56 Wn. App. 625 (affidavits lacking factual support are insufficient)
- Vant Leven v. Kretzler, 56 Wn. App. 349 (conclusory expert statements will not suffice)
- Marshall v. AC&S, Inc., 56 Wn. App. 181 (addressing use of corrected deposition testimony in summary judgment context)