Reese v. Stroh
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
*302Madsen, J.
— William and Frances Reese brought this medical malpractice action against Dr. James E. Stroh, Jr., alleging that he negligently failed to treat Mr. Reese’s emphysema with a protein replacement therapy called Prolastin. The trial court excluded the Reeses’ expert medical witness’ opinion testimony regarding causation as lacking sufficient foundation to go to the jury. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding such testimony should be evaluated under the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993). We affirm…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- State v. RussellWashington Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. CauthronWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. OrtizWashington Supreme Court · 1992
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by65 opinions
- State v. ThomasWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. ThomasWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- Berger v. SonnelandWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- Berger v. SonnelandWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2013
60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.