Legal Opinion

Winkler v. Giddings

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 19, 2008No. 26245-6-IIIPublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

¶1 This is a medical malpractice case. The trial judge refused to allow the plaintiff’s expert witness to testify to the standard of care owed by the defendant physician because the witness was unable to show his familiarity with the standard in Washington. The trial judge was required to make a preliminary finding of fact that the witness was qualified to express opinions on the standard of care before allowing the witness to express those opinions. The judge’s finding on those preliminary questions of fact are easily supported by this record. And we affirm the judgment entered on the jury’s…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Harris v. GrothWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  2. State v. C.J.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Seybold v. NeuCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  4. Seybold v. NeuCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  5. Bertsch v. BrewerWashington Supreme Court · 1982

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Joshua Driggs v. Andrew T.G. Howlett, M.D., et uxCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016
  2. Grove v. PeaceHealth St. Joseph HospitalCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
  3. Kathie and Joe Boyer v. Kai Morimoto, MD and Plastic Surgery NorthwestCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019
  4. Chaney v. Providence Health CareCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
  5. Moore v. Naph Care IncDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2025

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

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

Powered by the Exa API