Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,749 chars
trial court told defense counsel that “further foundation would need to be laid. Ask

an additional question. I can clarify, if you wish . . . [but] at this time the objection

. . . is sustained.” Several questions later, defense counsel asked Dr. Parker

whether he was “equally confident about the cause” of Sgt. Hockett’s RAD, to

which Dr. Parker replied, “I don’t have any history of anything else. I think there

was no other history that I obtained from him that would have led to that, that I

know of.” Defense counsel then stopped questioning Dr. Parker about his RAD

diagnosis.

On this record, SPD failed to elicit sufficient testimony—both before and

after its lawyer initially asked about RAD—to establish a proper foundation for Dr.

Parker to testify regarding whether Sgt. Hockett’s military-related exposures could

have caused his RAD. Contrary to SPD’s assertion, Dr. Parker testified as a fact

witness—not an expert witness—meaning his testimony about facts and medical

opinions was “limited to ‘the medical judgments and opinions which were derived

from the treatment.’” See Smith v. Orthopedics Int’l, Ltd., 170 Wn.2d 659, 672-73,

244 P.3d 939 (2010) (quoting Carson v. Fine, 123 Wn.2d 206, 216, 867 P.2d 610

(1994)). SPD largely declined the trial court’s suggestion that it ask further

questions to establish a sufficient foundation for Dr. Parker to testify on this topic.

Moreover, additional questioning of Dr. Parker on this issue would likely have run

afoul of the trial court’s pretrial order prohibiting reference to GWS. Lastly, SPD

has not shown prejudice because another witness opined that Sgt. Hockett’s

26
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85066-1-I