national standard in Washington

2019Elber v. Larson, 142 Wn.

2019Kathie Boyer argues that at least three decisions posit a rule that an out-of-state expert may testify to the Washington standard of care matching the national standard of care without disclosing a basis for his or her knowledge of this conclusion: Elber v. Larson, 142 Wn.

2024In Hill, the plaintiff offered testimony from an out-of-state expert who worked and trained in Washington that Washington follows a national standard of care. 143 Wn. App. at 444 .

2016Thus, Lawrence Menendez’s testimony as to the national standard was admissible. ¶50 Three decisions, Hill v. Sacred Heart Medical Center, 143 Wn.

2025Id.; Driggs v. Howlett, 193 Wn. App. 875, 899 , 371 P.3d 61 (2016).

2024And in Driggs, an out-of-state expert explained that he learned Washington follows the national standard of care by contacting physicians who practice here. 193 Wn. App. at 887 .

2024Driggs, 193 Wn. App. at 901 -02 (quoting Winkler v. Giddings, 146 Wn. App. 387, 392-93 , 190 P.3d 117 (2008)).

2024Driggs, 193 Wn. App. at 901 -02 (quoting Winkler v. Giddings, 146 Wn. App. 387, 392-93 , 190 P.3d 117 (2008)).

2014Elber v. Larson, 142 Wn. App. 243, 248 , 173 P.3d 990 (2007); Pon Kwock Eng I v. Klein, 127 Wn. App. 171 , 110 P.3d 844 (2005).

2014Elber v. Larson, 142 Wn. App. 243, 248 , 173 P.3d 990 (2007); Pon Kwock Eng I v. Klein, 127 Wn. App. 171 , 110 P.3d 844 (2005).

2021E.g., Frausto, 188 Wn.2d at 242-43; In re Det. of A.S., 138 Wn.2d 898, 918 , 982 11 Dr. Collier testified that he had determined by communicating with orthopedic surgeons practicing medicine in Washington that the Washington standard for diagnosing, treating and caring for tibial plateau fractures, and for monitoring and treating compartment syndrome, is the national standard, with which he is familiar.

2021Ill. 2001) (“Expert did not ‘identify any concrete standard upon which a finding of negligence could be based.’” (citing Butera v. District of Columbia, 344 U.S. App. D.C. 265 , 235 F.3d 637, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting District of Columbia v. Carmichael, 577 A.2d 312, 315 (D.C. 1990)))); Coll v. Johnson, 161 Vt. 163, 167 , 636 A.2d 336 (1993) (citing District of Columbia v. Peters, 527 A.2d 1269, 1273 (D.C. 1987) (expert testimony necessary to establish standard of care in training officers to deal with mentally disturbed persons or those under influence of drugs)). 2 “To establish a nation

2021Ill. 2001) (“Expert did not ‘identify any concrete standard upon which a finding of negligence could be based.’” (citing Butera v. District of Columbia, 344 U.S. App. D.C. 265 , 235 F.3d 637, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting District of Columbia v. Carmichael, 577 A.2d 312, 315 (D.C. 1990)))); Coll v. Johnson, 161 Vt. 163, 167 , 636 A.2d 336 (1993) (citing District of Columbia v. Peters, 527 A.2d 1269, 1273 (D.C. 1987) (expert testimony necessary to establish standard of care in training officers to deal with mentally disturbed persons or those under influence of drugs)). 2 “To establish a nation

2016State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24, 69 , 882 P.2d 747 (1994); Volk v. Demeerleer, 184 Wn.

2016State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24, 69 , 882 P.2d 747 (1994); Volk v. Demeerleer, 184 Wn.

2008Seybold, 105 Wash.App. at 677 , 19 P.3d 1068 . ¶ 12 Ms. Winkler argues that here, like in Eng, there is a national standard of care.

2008Seybold, 105 Wash.App. at 677 , 19 P.3d 1068 . ¶ 12 Ms. Winkler argues that here, like in Eng, there is a national standard of care.

1978To support his theory that the courts of this state have jurisdiction over the respondent college, the appellant relies upon the following provisions of RCW 4.28.185: (1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who in person or through an agent does any of *568 the acts in this section enumerated, thereby submits said person ... to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of said acts: (a) The transaction of any business within this state; (b) The commission of a tortious act within this state; In International

1978To support his theory that the courts of this state have jurisdiction over the respondent college, the appellant relies upon the following provisions of RCW 4.28.185: (1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who in person or through an agent does any of *568 the acts in this section enumerated, thereby submits said person ... to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of said acts: (a) The transaction of any business within this state; (b) The commission of a tortious act within this state; In International

1967In the recent case of Pederson v. Dumouchel, ante p. 73, 431 P.2d 973 (1967), this court discarded the “locality rule.” That opinion stated at 78, 79: *758 In Teig v. St.