Hawkins v. United States

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 SABELITA HAWKINS, CASE NO. C16-0498JLR 11 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER v. 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 13 et al., 14 Defendants. 15 The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable 16 James L. Robart: 17 On June 2, 2025, Plaintiff Sabelita Hawkins and Defendant the United States of 18 America (the “Government”) filed their respective trial briefs in this matter. (See 19 Hawkins Br. (Dkt. # 134); Gov. Br. (Dkt. # 133).) The trial in this action commenced on 20 June 9, 2025. During the first day of trial, the court orally ruled that Ms. Hawkins cannot 21 22 1 establish a medical malpractice claim against Dr. Daniel Doan1 because she did not 2 disclose, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), any expert opinion

3 regarding the standard of care for an internal medicine resident. See Frausto v. Yakima 4 HMA, LLC, 393 P.3d 776, 779 (Wash. 2017) (“[E]xpert testimony will generally be 5 necessary to establish the standard of care.”) (cleaned up); (see generally 12/4/24 Sykes 6 Decl. (Dkt. # 93) ¶ 5, Ex. C (“Dunner Report”) (not opining on the standard of care for an 7 internal medicine resident).) Accordingly, the only claim remaining in this case is Ms. 8 Hawkins’s medical malpractice claim against Dr. Carl Jensen.2

9 To prove a medical malpractice claim under Washington law, a plaintiff must 10 show that the defendant’s alleged breach of the standard of care was “a proximate cause” 11 of the claimed injury. See Campanelli v. PeaceHealth Sw. Med. Ctr., 565 P.3d 933, 945 12 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). If, after hearing the testimony and considering the evidence in 13 this case, the court concludes that Dr. Jensen breached the standard of care of a

14 psychiatrist, the court must then make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding 15 whether Dr. Jensen’s alleged breach was the proximate cause of Ms. Hawkins’s claimed 16 damages. Ms. Hawkins’s expert, Dr. David Dunner, opines that Dr. Jensen’s actions 17 “contributed to the [December 15, 2011] psychotic episode experienced by Ms. 18 Hawkins” which “resulted in [her] stabbing her mother.” (Dunner Report at 7.) In the

19 court’s view, Dr. Dunner’s use of the phrase “contributed to”—as opposed to “caused 20 21 1 Dr. Doan was an internal medicine resident at all times relevant to this lawsuit. 22 2 Dr. Jensen was a psychiatrist at all times relevant to this lawsuit. 1 by”—implies that factors other than Dr. Jensen’s alleged breach of the standard of care 2 were proximate causes of Ms. Hawkins’s December 15, 2011 psychotic episode. The

3 court will identify these additional factors, if any, by reviewing the expert testimony and 4 other evidence submitted in this case. In considering the expert testimony and record 5 evidence in this case, the court will also consider whether comparative fault applies here. 6 (See Gov. Br. at 16 (discussing comparative fault); see also Workman v. Chinchinian, 7 807 F. Supp. 634, 641 (E.D. Wash. 1992) (applying Washington’s comparative fault law 8 to medical malpractice claim).

9 In light of the foregoing, the court seeks guidance from the parties regarding how 10 to apportion fault in this case, if at all. The court accordingly ORDERS the parties to file 11 supplemental briefs of no more than 2,500 words, by June 16, 2025, explaining how fault 12 should be allocated in this case, if at all, with citations to case law. No response briefs 13 shall be filed unless otherwise ordered by the court.

14 Filed and entered this 9th day of June, 2025. 15 RAVI SUBRAMANIAN Clerk of Court 16 s/ Ashleigh Drecktrah 17 Deputy Clerk

18 19 20 21 22