Krystina Carson, V. Matthew Ashbach, M.d. Et Ano
86049-6
Wash. Ct. App.May 19, 2025Background
- Krystina Carson sued Dr. Matthew Ashbach and Western Washington Medical Group, Inc. (WWMG), alleging medical negligence, lack of informed consent, and corporate negligence related to a 2020 dermal filler procedure that resulted in permanent facial injury.
- Carson had received several Radiesse filler injections from Dr. Ashbach between 2016 and 2019; in 2020, despite known increased risks with Radiesse, she requested and received another injection without signing a new consent form.
- After the 2020 injection, Carson suffered severe complications but delayed seeking emergency care due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The trial court dismissed the corporate negligence claim at summary judgment. A jury found against Carson on her remaining claims.
- Carson appealed, arguing errors in jury instruction on informed consent, dismissal of the corporate negligence claim, and use of a Kent jury for her Seattle-designated case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury Instruction on Informed Consent Form (RCW 7.70.060(5)) | The instruction improperly focused the jury away from failure to use a written form, prejudicing her claim. | The instruction was necessary to avoid the jury improperly using lack of a written form as evidence of failure to obtain informed consent. | Instruction was proper; no error or prejudice. |
| Dismissal of Corporate Negligence Claim | The dismissal was error since WWMG failed to properly train/supervise on informed consent. | No proximate cause exists if underlying liability for failure to obtain informed consent was not established. | Issue deemed moot by defense verdict; dismissal upheld. |
| Use of Kent Jury Pool for Seattle-Designated Case | It was improper to empanel a Kent jury for a Seattle case. | Assignment within court rules and for juror convenience; no legal error. | Use of Kent jury was proper under court rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Shannon, 100 Wn.2d 26 (Washington law allows customary practice as some evidence in determining materiality for informed consent, but not requirement of written forms)
- Douglas v. Freeman, 117 Wn.2d 242 (Describes elements of hospital corporate negligence under Washington law)
- Hizey v. Carpenter, 119 Wn.2d 251 (Defines improper judicial comment on the evidence for Washington jury trials)
- Keller v. City of Spokane, 146 Wn.2d 237 (Sufficiency of jury instructions—must allow argument of each side’s theory and not mislead jury)
- Pedroza v. Bryant, 101 Wn.2d 226 (Describes nondelegable duty in hospital corporate negligence cases)
- Bundrick v. Stewart, 128 Wn. App. 11 (Demonstrates how a jury’s informed consent determination is dispositive for related common law claims)