Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

Local News


Our network sites seattletimes.com | Advanced

Originally published Thursday, February 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM

NEW - Introducing two new blogs

The Blotter

Go beyond the headlines on cops and courts.

The Business of Giving

Exploring philanthropy, non-profits and socially motivated business.

Print

Wash. court dismisses lawsuit over cow-bone graft

A woman who had cow bone grafted into her mouth against her wishes can't sue a dental office under the state's Consumer Protection Act, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Associated Press Writer

OLYMPIA, Wash. —

A woman who had cow bone grafted into her mouth against her wishes can't sue a dental office under the state's Consumer Protection Act, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The patient, Mystie Michael of Olympia, sued after getting a bone graft that contained some cow parts. Before the surgery, Michael asked that only human bone be used for the graft "because she could not fathom the thought of having animal parts in her body," the court said.

Michael's periodontist, Dr. Betsy Mosquera-Lacy, started the graft with a human bone as requested, but ran out during the surgery. Mosquera-Lacy completed the graft with cow bone, which is also used in dental grafts.

Michael found out about the cow-bone substitution while recovering in the hospital, where she was rushed after the surgery because of an allergic reaction to drugs.

She sued Mosquera-Lacy and Bright Now Dental Inc. for negligence, medical battery and violations of the Consumer Protection Act. The consumer protection claims were thrown out, and Michael settled the other claims against Mosquera-Lacy.

Michael then dismissed her other claims against the dental office to pursue the Consumer Protection Act case, but the Supreme Court unanimously rejected that lawsuit Thursday.

The court's decision said Michael's case didn't meet the law's tests for unfair business practices. Dispute over the medical decision in Michael's bone graft isn't covered under the consumer protection law because it's a question of negligence, not of business practices, the court said.

The doctor "was practicing medicine by treating and caring for Michael, not soliciting patients by advertising the use of human bone for bone grafting procedures. She was not in the business of selling cow bone or human bone," Justice Richard Sanders wrote for the court.

Michael also failed to show that her case serves the broader public interest, the court said.

---

The case is No. 80665-9, Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy and Bright Now Dental Inc.

---

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.courts.wa.gov

Copyright © 2009 The Seattle Times Company

More Local News headlines...

Print      Share:    Digg     Newsvine

Comments
No comments have been posted to this article.

advertising


Get home delivery today!

UPDATE - 09:46 AM
Exxon Mobil wins ruling in Alaska oil spill case

NEW - 7:51 AM
Longview man says he was tortured with hot knife

Longview man says he was tortured with hot knife

Longview mill spills bleach into Columbia River

NEW - 8:00 AM
More extensive TSA searches in Sea-Tac Airport rattle some travelers

Advertising

Video

Marketplace

 
Most read
Most commented
Most e-mailed
 
 

Most viewed imagesMore

Advertising