In a recent development, the Washington Court of Appeals overturned a previous ruling, which awarded summary judgment to the city of Tacoma. The decision arose from a case involving the unfortunate demise of Shamarra Scott, whose estate argued that her death was a consequence of a collision with a cruiser from the Tacoma Police Department.
According to the evidence presented, Scott’s preexisting sarcoidosis illness was allegedly exacerbated by the traumatic event, leading to osteoporosis, surgery complications, and eventually resulting in her death. The turning point in the appeal was the acceptance of a doctor’s statement on behalf of the plaintiff.
Previously, the city of Tacoma had claimed the doctor’s testimony was impermissible as it based on “novel science”. However, the Court of Appeals rejected this allegation, concluding that the testimony was not inappropriately based on such claims. This ruling paves the way for testimonies in similar cases, where so-called “novel science” plays a crucial role in understanding and attributing cause in complex medical situations.
For further details, please refer to the original report from Law.com.