1122 W. James Street | Kent, WA 98032

Contact Us Kent: 253.850.6411

Seattle: 206.343.4841 | Tacoma: 877.778.9680 | Everett: 877.788.9680

Submission of information to us through this contact form does not create an attorney-client relationship, so please do not submit any confidential information. If we are to serve as your attorneys, all fees and the nature of our representation will be set forth in a written agreement.

Seattle: 206.343.4841 | Tacoma: 877.778.9680 | Everett: 877.788.9680

  • Please leave the best phone number where you can be reached.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Close FormPrintable Map & Info


Attorneys at Law

Our Firm featured on KING5 news regarding compromised medical records at Carol Milgard Breast Center

Our firm was featured last Friday on KING 5 news regarding a recent case concerning failure to properly diagnose breast cancer.  The KING 5 story is linked here.


$15.2 million judgment in King County medical malpractice case

In July, Judge Erlick of the King County Superior Court awarded the family of MacKenzie Briant a $15.2 million judgment against defendants Seattle Children’s Hospital and the University of Washington. The judgment resulted from a medical malpractice case where a simple miscommunication between two doctors resulted in a 4-year-old girl going into cardiac arrest and suffering permanent brain damage. The plaintiff was a young girl from Snoqualmie who had survived a heart transplant when she


Interplay Between Informed Consent and Failure to Diagnose Case Theories

In December of 2012, the Washington Court of Appeals issued a case containing further guidance with regard to how lack of informed consent cases interplay with medical negligence cases involving a failure to diagnose.  The case was Gomez v. Sauerwein (289 P.3d 755). Medical negligence can take many forms, one of which is failure to diagnose.  The basis of such a theory is that medical providers have many sets of standards that must be followed


Follow up on Levin v. United States

We now have the answer to the question regarding the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Gonzalez Act that was argued to the United States Supreme Court in Levin v. United States.  We wrote about this a few weeks ago. The starting point is that the United States has immunity from lawsuits filed against it.  If the U.S. wants to waive that immunity, it may do so.  The FTCA is one such example where the


McDevitt v. Harborview builds on Waples

The Washington State Supreme Court recently re-visited the Waples v. Yi decision, just as we did, albeit with regard to new issues. In January of 2013, a new case was handed down called McDevitt v. Harborview Medical Center (291 P.3d 876).  With McDevitt, the Court pulled back a little bit on the holding of Waples. If you remember, Waples involved RCW 7.70.100(1) and a 90 day presuit notice that was mandatory with regard to filing


Levin v. U.S., or Reconciling the FTCA and the Gonzalez Act

An interesting case was recently argued in the Supreme Court that concerns various aspects of our practice.  The case is entitled Levin v. United States, and it is an appeal from the Ninth Circuit case 663 F.3d 1059 (2011).  Of concern to our practice is how the courts will interpret certain aspects of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), specifically with regard to suits against medical personnel employed by the U.S. government. In this case,