Legal Opinion

Jones v. Sisters of Providence in Washington, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided March 9, 2000No. 67740-9PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtIreland, J.

The sole issue before this court in this medical malpractice action is whether reversal was required because an alternate juror participated in deliberations. We hold that under the facts of this case it was prejudicial error requiring reversal.

I

Facts

In June 1995, Frederick Jones brought a medical malpractice action against Drs. Susan Lo and Richard Foutch claiming that they were negligent for failing to diagnose Jones’ right leg ischemia.1 Jones also named Sisters of Providence as a defendant because both Drs. Lo and Foutch were working out of facilities owned by Providence when they treated…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Morris v. BlakerWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  2. State v. RobertsWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Weyerhaeuser Company v. TriWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  4. State v. McIntyreWashington Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. State Of Delaware Department Of Health And Social ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Stokes v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
  2. Jones v. Sisters of Providence in Wash.Washington Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Haralampopoulos ex rel. Haralampopoulos v. KellyColorado Court of Appeals · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API