Mary Hedman v. Dr. W. Dale Crum
33318-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 8, 2016Background
- Mary Hedman underwent full-arch implant work by Dr. W. Dale Crum in Nov. 2009 and later complained of pain and prosthetic problems; she changed providers and obtained restorative care from others.
- Hedman alleged medical negligence, lack of informed consent, breach of promise, CPA violations, and corporate/vicarious liability against Dr. Crum, Oral Surgery Plus, Dr. Simonds, Dr. Lockwood, and associated entities; case filed Aug. 26, 2013.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Hedman lacked competent expert proof of breach and causation; multiple attorneys appeared and withdrew for Hedman during pretrial proceedings.
- Hedman submitted various declarations/letters (including an unsworn 2010 letter from Dr. Lockwood) and later proffered expert declarations that had not yet reviewed records; one treating dentist (Dr. Brossoit) recanted parts of an earlier declaration at deposition.
- Trial court excluded the unsworn Lockwood letter, found Hedman lacked admissible expert proof of the standard of care and proximate causation as to Dr. Crum, denied Hedman’s CR 56(f) continuance request, and granted summary judgment for all defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Hedman’s Argument | Crum (Defendants’) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hedman produced admissible expert evidence that Crum breached the standard of care | Hedman relied on expert letters/declarations and treating-provider statements (including Dr. Lockwood’s 2010 letter and Dr. Brossoit’s declarations) to show breach | Defendants argued Hedman lacked competent, sworn expert testimony tying breach and causation to Crum; some proffered writings were unsworn or retracted | Court held Hedman failed to produce admissible expert evidence proving breach or causation; summary judgment affirmed |
| Admissibility of Dr. Lockwood’s 2010 letter (unsworn) as opposing evidence | Lockwood’s letter shows Crum practiced outside competence and treatment was below standard of care | Defendants: letter is unsworn, inadmissible under CR 56(e) and cannot create a material fact issue | Court held the unsworn letter inadmissible under CR 56(e) and could not be considered to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether Hedman’s other proffers (depositions, treating declarations, retained-but-unprepared experts) raise material fact | Hedman pointed to Dr. Higuchi’s deposition, Dr. Brossoit’s earlier declaration, Dr. Bot’s testimony re: pain/depression, and declarations from retained experts needing more time to review records | Defendants: these sources were non-specific, did not opine on standard of care or causation for Crum, or were undermined at deposition | Court held remaining evidence was insufficient to establish breach or proximate causation; did not create a genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether denial of CR 56(f) continuance to obtain admissible expert affidavits was an abuse of discretion | Hedman argued she needed more time to obtain sworn expert opinions and proffered declarations that experts were retained and needed record review | Defendants and trial court: Hedman failed to identify what additional evidence would show, had repeated attorney changes and previous continuances, and did not give adequate reason for further delay | Court held denial of CR 56(f) continuance was not an abuse of discretion because Hedman failed to specify the evidence that additional discovery would produce |
Key Cases Cited
- Davies v. Holy Family Hosp., 144 Wn. App. 483 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (expert qualification and summary judgment standards in medical-malpractice context)
- Guile v. Ballard Cmty. Hosp., 70 Wn. App. 18 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993) (plaintiff must produce qualified expert affidavit to oppose summary judgment in malpractice claims)
- Young Sao Kim v. Choong-Hyun Lee, 174 Wn. App. 319 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (unsworn expert statements cannot defeat summary judgment under CR 56(e))
- Coggle v. Snow, 56 Wn. App. 499 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990) (circumstances where CR 56(f) continuance should be granted when substitute counsel identifies specific evidence to be obtained)