95 Wash. App. 663 - Bauer v. White’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2024
19 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 99 Wash. 2d 438 - Harris v. Groth · 85 Wash. App. 822 - Morinaga v. Vue · McCormick v. Jones · 95 Wash. 2d 531 - Bennett v. Department of Labor & Industries · 67 Wash. 2d 934 - Conrad v. Lakewood General Hospital
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Simply put, it is not reasonable prudence to unintentionally leave a foreign substance in a surgical patient.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Miller v. Jacoby · Miller v. Jacoby“This medical malpractice case pits the apparent categorical requirement of RCW 4.24.290 and RCW 7.70.040 for expert testimony to support a medical negligence claim against the long-standing Washington rule that unintentionally leaving a foreign object in a surgical patient is negligence per se. . . . The question here is whether a patient must present an expert medical opinion that unintentionally leaving a foreign object in a surgical patient violates the standard of care for physicians in this state. We conclude that she need not, and reverse and remand for trial on the issues of causation and damages.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Once it is established that the object was inadvertently left inside the patient's body (i.e., negligence), the patient is entitled to any damages that were proximately caused from such negligence. . . . A patient has the right to have the foreign object removed from his or her body, even if removal is psychologically motivated. Under these circumstances, the physician's negligence is the "unequivocal proximate cause of some damage," including the additional surgical procedure. A physician may also be liable for pain and suffering caused by the removal of the object. Bauer, 95 Wash.App. at 669 , 976 P.2d 664 (citations omitted). Clearly, Bauer contemplates Miller defeats summary judgment and wins some damages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Miller v. Jacoby
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.