Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Association
v. Fisons Corp. case brief summary
858 P.2d 1054 (1993)
CASE FACTS
Respondent alleged that his reputation was tarnished when a drug he properly prescribed left a two year-old girl brain-damaged. Appellant raised several issues concerning the damage award.
DISCUSSION
The court held that respondent had standing to bring the Consumer Protection Act claim, and there was sufficient evidence of the elements of that claim; that the trial court did not err in calculating the attorney fee award; that the physician's claims were not preempted by guidelines of the Federal Food and Drug Administration. However, the court found that respondent had no right to recover for his own pain and suffering under either the Consumer Protection Act or product liability claims; that respondent physician had no independent right of action for negligence; that respondent insurer had no right of action under the Consumer Protection Act; and that the trial court abused its discretion in not sanctioning appellant and its attorneys for discovery abuse.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Civil Procedure





Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
858 P.2d 1054 (1993)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant drug company sought review
from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County
(Washington), which awarded respondent physician, and others, damages
plus attorney fees under Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86 and § 7.72, but
not on other claims. Respondents appealed from the denial of their
motion for sanctions against appellant for discovery
violations.CASE FACTS
Respondent alleged that his reputation was tarnished when a drug he properly prescribed left a two year-old girl brain-damaged. Appellant raised several issues concerning the damage award.
DISCUSSION
The court held that respondent had standing to bring the Consumer Protection Act claim, and there was sufficient evidence of the elements of that claim; that the trial court did not err in calculating the attorney fee award; that the physician's claims were not preempted by guidelines of the Federal Food and Drug Administration. However, the court found that respondent had no right to recover for his own pain and suffering under either the Consumer Protection Act or product liability claims; that respondent physician had no independent right of action for negligence; that respondent insurer had no right of action under the Consumer Protection Act; and that the trial court abused its discretion in not sanctioning appellant and its attorneys for discovery abuse.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Civil Procedure
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
No comments:
Post a Comment