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
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850661.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Full Text
1,749 charstrial 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