Parkin v. Colocousis
| Decision Date | 20 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 20834-9-I,20834-9-I |
| Citation | 53 Wn.App. 649,769 P.2d 326 |
| Parties | Helen G. PARKIN, Appellant, v. John COLOCOUSIS, M.D., and Jane Doe Colocousis, husband and wife; Respondents, Scott Van Linder, M.D., and Jane Doe Linder, husband and wife; Providence Medical Center, a Washington corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Jack J. Ackerman, Francis & Ackerman, Seattle, for appellant Helen G. parkin.
John P. Evans, Margaret A. Sandberg, Cynthia S.C. Gannett, Williams, Kastner & Gibbs, Seattle, for respondents John Colocousis, M.D., et al.
Helen Parkin appeals from a summary judgment entered against her on her complaint for medical malpractice.
On May 6, 1985, Dr. Colocousis operated on Parkin for a right femoral hernia. During the operation he found and repaired a direct inguinal hernia. He also left two surgical clips in place. Parkin continued to have pain after the surgery. On July 30, 1986, she filed a complaint for medical malpractice against Colocousis alleging failure to diagnose, failure to properly treat, and failure to advise her of the procedures to be followed. Colocousis moved for summary judgment. His supporting affidavit read as follows:
On May 6, 1985 I operated upon plaintiff to explore the possibility that she suffered from a right femoral hernia. During the operation I found a direct iguinal [sic] hernia with probable incarceration of preperitoneal [sic] fat. This was reduced and a repair of the direct iguinal [sic] hernia carried out. In doing the operation I intended to leave two surgical clips in the plaintiff on a permanent basis. In so doing I possessed and exercised that degree of skill, care and learning expected of a reasonably prudent physician and surgeon in the State of Washington acting in the same or similar circumstances.
Parkin's responsive affidavit indicated that Colocousis never mentioned or discussed leaving surgical clips in her. The trial court determined that no genuine issue of material fact existed relative to Colocousis's alleged breach of the standard of care or to the existence of any proximate cause between the alleged breach and Parkin's claimed injuries, and that no genuine issue of material fact existed on Parkin's claim of lack of informed consent.
This appeal raises two issues. The first is whether Dr. Colocousis's affidavit is sufficient to support a summary judgment on the issues of breach of duty and informed consent. The second issue, raised by the respondents, is whether Parkin waived any error as to Colocousis's affidavit because she did not specifically argue the sufficiency of the affidavit to the trial court.
The first issue regarding the sufficiency of Dr. Colocousis's affidavit is resolved by Hash v. Children's Orthopedic Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 110 Wash.2d 912, 757 P.2d 507 (1988). In that case the Supreme Court affirmed a Court of Appeals decision that reversed a summary judgment in favor of the hospital. The Court held that the affidavit of the hospital's medical expert was insufficient to support a summary judgment in favor of the moving party. The expert had opined that prescribing vigorous physical therapy conformed to the applicable standard of care and concluded that the physical therapy program administered to the plaintiff met that standard of care. The Court held that the affidavit was conclusory and did not present "specific facts" surrounding the critical issues. In dicta, the Supreme Court suggested that "[a]t the very least, to support a motion for summary judgment the moving party is required to set out its version of the facts and allege that there is no genuine issue as to the facts as set out." Hash, at 916, 757 P.2d 507.
Dr. Colocousis's affidavit is conclusory and insufficient in the same manner that the affidavit in Hash was insufficient. It sets forth no specific facts that support the opinion that Colocousis performed his duty toward Parkin. It does little more than state the legal conclusion that Colocousis was not negligent. In fact, the affidavit does not describe the standard of care with which the doctor allegedly complied. As to the issue of informed consent, the affidavit is particularly insufficient. It lacks both "specific facts" and legal conclusions pertaining to informed consent. It does not address Parkin's allegations regarding Colocousis's failure to advise of the possibility and risk of the surgical clips, nor does it negate any of the required elements of a cause of action for failure to secure informed consent. Nicholson v. Deal, 52 Wash.App. 814, 764 P.2d 1007 (1988); see RCW 7.70.050(1).
Respondent contends that Parkin waived error with regard to the sufficiency of the Colocousis affidavit by not arguing her position to the trial court. The trial court was fully apprised of the alleged deficiencies as they related to issues of informed consent and res ipsa loquitur. However, it appears that Parkin did not argue to the trial court that Colocousis's affidavit was conclusory and insufficient to support a summary judgment on medical malpractice theories.
Generally, in order to preserve for review a claim that an affidavit is defective, a party must register an objection which specifies the deficiency or must move to strike the affidavit before the trial court's entry of summary judgment. Smith v. Showalter, 47 Wash.App. 245, 248, 734 P.2d 928 (1987). This rule clearly applies to objections that the affidavits are not made on personal knowledge, do not set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence, or do not show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. CR 56(e); Smith v. Showalter, supra; Lamon v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 91 Wash.2d 345, 352, 588 P.2d 1346 (1979).
However, the rule requiring objection to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kennedy v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.
...This being a summary judgment proceeding, this court is to engage in the same inquiry as the trial court. Parkin v. Colocousis, 53 Wash.App. 649, 652-53, 769 P.2d 326 (1989); CR 56(c). We must consider the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. An order granting summary jud......
-
Sheldon v. Fettig
...a standard of review: this is a review from a motion granting summary judgment and review is therefore de novo. Parkin v. Colocousis, 53 Wash.App. 649, 653, 769 P.2d 326 (1989). Further, the question presented is one of law (and neither party contends otherwise)--whether Fettig's ties to th......
-
Vargas v. City of Asotin
...genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Parkin v. Colocousis, 53 Wn. App. 649, 653, 769 P.2d 326 (1989) (quoting CR 56(c)). Summary judgment is appropriate "if reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion on that iss......
-
Marriage of Monaghan, In re
...agreement. Dolores did not properly preserve this objection for appeal and thus it will not be considered. See Parkin v. Colocousis, 53 Wash.App. 649, 652, 769 P.2d 326 (1989) (failing to make appropriate objection to affidavit at the trial court generally waives the issue on found that the......
-
Table of Cases
...Dist. 1, 149 Wn.2d 660, 72 P.3d 151 (2003): 22.3(6) Parker v. Wyman, 176 Wn.2d 212, 289 P.3d 628 (2012): 4.2(4) Parkin v. Colocousis, 53 Wn. App. 649, 769 P.2d 326 (1989): 11.3(2), 11.7(1)(a)(iv), 11.7(7)(b)(i), 11.7(7)(b)(ii) Pasco Police Officers' Ass'n v. City of Pasco, 132 Wn.2d 450, 93......
-
§ 11.7 Particular Applications of the General Rule and Its Exceptions
...to make appropriate objection to affidavit at the trial court generally waives the issue on appeal" (citing Parkin v. Colocousis, 53 Wn.App. 649, 652, 769 P.2d 326 (1989)). The court in Parkin characterized the rule in Smith v. Showalter, 47 Wn.App. 245, 248, 734 P.2d 928 (1987), as "clearl......
-
§ 11.3 Rule-Based Exceptions to The General Rule
...in cases in which the deficiency in the affidavits "pertains to a lack of proof rather than evidentiary problems." Parkin v. Colocousis, 53 Wn.App. 649, 652, 769 P.2d 326 (1989) (reversing summary judgment for defendant in a medical negligence case; supporting affidavits were found to be in......