On Saturday, July 16, 2016, at 6:29 a.m., Charles Donegan arrived for work at Walmart. Shortly before his scheduled 11:00 a.m. lunch break, Mr. Donegan was not feeling well and thought he needed to go home. He clocked out at 10:52 a.m. and then contacted his wife, who was also employed at Walmart, to tell her he was not feeling well and was heading home. As Mr. Donegan walked away from his wife, she noticed he was limping. Shortly after Mr. Donegan arrived home, Ms. Donegan was contacted by her son, who reported Mr. Donegan was slurring his words and was wobbly. Ms. Donegan left Walmart, went home, and transported Mr. Donegan to the emergency room at Samaritan Hospital.
Mr. Donegan arrived at Samaritan Hospital at approximately 12:25 p.m. and was assessed by a triage nurse at 12:36 p.m. An EKG (electrocardiogram) and CT (computerized tomography) scan of Mr. Donegan’s head were ordered and both came back as normal. Mr. Donegan was discharged at 2:07 p.m.
Two days later, Mr. Donegan returned to Samaritan Hospital with progressive weakness in his left side and an inability to walk. He also had slurred speech and a facial droop on the left side. At this point, Mr. Donegan was admitted to Samaritan Hospital with a diagnosis of an acute cerebrovascular accident, commonly referred to as a stroke.
The Donegans filed a complaint for medical negligence against Samaritan Hospital and PA Gruver. They alleged the health care providers breached the duty owed to Mr. Donegan by failing to timely diagnose and treat his stroke, which caused him to suffer damages in the form of a loss of a chance of a better outcome. Although Samaritan Hospital did not concede to a breach of the standard of care, it argued that even if PA Gruver had properly diagnosed Mr. Donegan as suffering a stroke, tPA either would not or could not have been administered as the treatment must be administered within three hours of the onset of symptoms, and the hospital claimed that his symptoms started outside of that time frame (which was disputed by the Donegans). The trial court initially denied the hospital’s motion for summary judgment.
After concluding the depositions of the Donegans’ expert witnesses, Samaritan Hospital again moved for summary judgment dismissal of the Donegans’ claims. Although Samaritan Hospital did not concede to a violation of the standard of care, it argued that even if it failed to meet the requisite standard of care, the Donegans had failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to proximate cause. Stated otherwise, because Samaritan Hospital reported that Mr. Donegan’s symptoms began at around 7:00 a.m., even if he had been properly diagnosed with a stroke, tPA would have had to be administered by approximately 10:00 a.m. Mr. Donegan did not arrive at the hospital until 12:30 p.m. In a lengthy letter decision, the trial court, sua sponte, struck Dr. Frey’s opinions (the plaintiffs’ expert) and granted Samaritan Hospital’s motion, thereby dismissing the Donegans’ complaint.
In its unpublished opinion filed on October 24, 2023, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington Division Three (“Washington Appellate Court”) stated, “the standard under ER 702 is whether the testimony by a qualified expert will be helpful to the trier of fact. As the trial court recognized, Dr. Frey is a qualified expert. But unlike the trial court, we believe Dr. Frey’s opinion would be helpful to the trier of fact. Specifically, Dr. Frey offers opinions related to the effectiveness of tPA treatment if administered within three hours from the onset of symptoms … here, Dr. Frey based his opinions on his education, training, and experience, coupled with his review of Mr. Donegan’s medical records, the exhibits, and the Donegans’ deposition testimony. Dr. Frey’s opinions were not grounded purely on observational studies … The trial court took exception to Dr. Frey’s failure to take Mr. Donegan’s history of smoking habits and age into consideration in forming his opinion. The court stated that Dr. Frey’s failure to consider these factors “affect[ed] the reliability and admissibility of any method Dr. Frey employed.” CP at 810. These factors speak to the credibility of Dr. Frey’s opinion, not its admissibility. As the trial court admitted, “Dr. Frey is qualified to offer an opinion on causation.” CP at 814. Dr. Frey’s opinion meets the requirements of ER 702 and, on de novo review, will be considered.”
“In considering the evidence, as well as all reasonable inferences from the evidence, in the light most favorable to the Donegans, reasonable minds could reach differing conclusions as to when Mr. Donegan’s symptoms began, how the observations of Ms. Donegan, if accepted by Samaritan Hospital, may have influenced the evaluation and treatment of Mr. Donegan, and whether PA Gruver’s failure to adhere to the requisite standard of care in assessing a stroke patient prevented Samaritan Hospital from gathering information relevant to diagnosing Mr. Donegan.”
“Samaritan Hospital suggests that Dr. Frey’s testimony regarding the potential benefit of administering tPA within the three-hour time period is insufficient because it was not distinct to Mr. Donegan, meaning it lacks consideration of his specific chance of recovery based on his age and various other factors. In viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the Donegans, Dr. Frey’s testimony suffices.”
The Washington Appellate Court held: “The Donegans presented sufficient evidence to support their claimed damages for loss of chance of a better outcome and defeat summary judgment. We reverse the dismissal of their claims and remand for further proceedings.”
Source Donegan v. Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1 of Grant County, No. 39035-7-III.
If you or a loved one may have been injured as a result of hospital malpractice in Washington or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Washington medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your hospital medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a hospital medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.