PDA

View Full Version : Court awards oral surgeon $750,000 in boar-tusk case


rychehitman
07-31-2007, 01:02 AM
Court awards oral surgeon $750,000 in boar-tusk case

By Christina Siderius

Seattle Times staff reporter

A local oral surgeon should have been backed by his insurance provider when an employee sued him for putting fake boar tusks in her mouth and taking photographs while he performed a dental procedure on her, the state Supreme Court decided today.

The court ruled that Auburn dentist Robert Woo should have received legal defense from Fireman's Fund Insurance, restoring an original jury verdict to award the dentist $750,000 after it was overturned by an appeals court.

In a dissenting opinion, one justice wrote that today's decision "rewards Dr. Woo's obnoxious behavior and allows him to profit handsomely," while also calling the original incident involving his assistant "intentional offensive and likely tortuous conduct."

Woo will get $750,000 in damages, attorney fees, and is also reimbursed the $250,000 that he paid to settle the original lawsuit with his employee.

The eight-year legal jumble can all be traced back to a pot-bellied pig named Walter, owned by Woo's surgical assistant. The assistant, who worked for Woo for five years, talked frequently about Walter in the office, and about the abandoned pot-bellied pigs that she cared for, according to court documents.

Woo made several remarks, including how he would like to barbecue Walter, documents said. He went on a boar-hunting trip and brought back pictures of a dead boar to show the assistant. Woo claimed that his comments were just part of a "friendly working environment," documents said.

But then he pulled out the fake boar tusks.

The assistant needed to have two teeth replaced with implants, and Woo told her he could do it, documents said.

Woo prepared a pair of fake boar tusks and, while his assistant was sedated for the procedure, Woo removed the oxygen mask, inserted the tusks in her mouth and took photos without her consent. :laugh: He later developed the pictures and showed them to employees,:banghead: and later one of his other employees gave them to the assistant as a birthday present. :thumbsdow The assistant was stunned.

So stunned that she filed a lawsuit with several complaints against the dentist, including invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress and medical negligence.

Woo sought defense with his insurer, Fireman's, who would not defend him because his actions did not fall under "dental services," documents said.

Woo settled with his assistant for $250,000 and then took his insurer to court. In June 2003, the King County Superior Court jury awarded the dentist $750,000, but that was overturned two years later by the state Court of Appeals, although it left the $250,000 settlement intact.

:laugh:

The Watcher
07-31-2007, 06:29 AM
What is it about our society that we feel the need to reward boorish, irresponsible and often times, illegal behavior?

If there's any real justice in this world, the people on the jury will get the same type of "medical treatment" that the victim did.

1. The dentist should have his license revoked and pay all legal bills.
2. The Insurance Company (Fireman's Fund) should be rewarded for refusing to defend the obnoxious dentist.
3. The victim should get any and all money that is owed her.

Babytoxie
07-31-2007, 09:14 AM
Damn straight he should have his license revoked, AND pay all legal bills. Why should an insurance company have to cover him for something intentional, especially a practical joke? Amazing...:banghead:

bat_collector
07-31-2007, 09:46 AM
I can't believe it!

The Watcher
08-01-2007, 02:53 PM
Sheesh!

What next, a judge suing a dry-cleaning store for millions of dollars because they lost his pants?

mwf6171
08-01-2007, 04:30 PM
I greatly dislike insurance companies, so I am glad the Doc got his $$$$.

hawkeyethearcher
08-01-2007, 05:14 PM
what kinda world is this wre you cant play a harmless joke on someone. we are all aware that this person wasnt injured or humiliated but saw the opportunity for money and took it. society just sucks now a days. remember this next time you tell a knock knock joke at work . if you have money sopmeone eill sue you. if you dont they will try to sue the employee. hey people try working for a living.

armitage
08-02-2007, 06:39 PM
I greatly dislike insurance companies, so I am glad the Doc got his $$$$.

I disagree.
I think the guy should be made to get a tatto on his forehead that says reject.
This world is f#cked up.:banghead:

Underdog07
08-02-2007, 07:10 PM
This case does not condone the doctor's actions but prevents the insurance company from forgoing its contractual obligations to cover the expenses related to those actions.

What the doctor did is wrong and inexcusable. He paid for that though. The insurance company was in the wrong in not covering his expenses thouogh. No matter how assinine the person acts, that insurance is there to protect against these types of things.

The fact that he was acting in his professional capacity as opposed to say anyon eof us goofing in our yard or house does not remove the insurance company's contractual obligations.

Car50n
08-02-2007, 08:27 PM
what kinda world is this wre you cant play a harmless joke on someone. we are all aware that this person wasnt injured or humiliated but saw the opportunity for money and took it. society just sucks now a days. remember this next time you tell a knock knock joke at work . if you have money sopmeone eill sue you. if you dont they will try to sue the employee. hey people try working for a living.

i agree. everyone wants to sue everyone over the smallest things...while unprofessional, no one was hurt. just a joke. the pics were probably funny