Legal Opinion

Harris v. Groth

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided May 17, 1982No. 8796-7-IPublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCorbett, J.

Plaintiff appeals a judgment of dismissal and order denying motion for new trial entered after a defense verdict. We affirm.

Plaintiff, Barbara Harris, has been treated since 1965 for chronic iritis, an inflammatory disease of the front portion of the eye. Plaintiff consulted the defendant, Dr. Groth, in November 1976, at which time she was 42. He diagnosed her condition as iritis and followed the recognized treatment for the disease by prescribing atropine and Maxitrol. Dr. Groth did not test her intraocular pressure. In most cases, during iritis the intraocular pressure remains low. In some…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Levy v. North American Co. for Life & Health InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Shelby v. KeckWashington Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Keogan v. Holy Family HospitalWashington Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Helling v. CareyWashington Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Gates v. JensenWashington Supreme Court · 1979

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Harris v. GrothWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  2. State v. McCartyWashington Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Davidson v. Municipality of Metropolitan SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1986
  4. Hammel v. RifeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1984
  5. Winkler v. GiddingsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008

4 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