Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court says dentist's prank was "business activity"
Seattle Times ^ | July 26, 2007 | David Postman

Posted on 7/29/2007, 8:57:05 PM by bobsunshine

The state Supreme Court says a dentist who stuck boar tusks into the mouth of an anesthetized employee/patient, pried her eyes open, and took photographs, was conducting a "business practice" and his insurance company must pay his attorney fees and court costs. That means dentist Robert Woo will get more money from his insurance company than his employee did when she sued him for "outrage, battery, invasion of privacy, false light, public disclosure of private acts, nonpayment of overtime wages, retaliation for requesting payment of overtime wages, medical negligence, lack of informed consent, and negligent infliction of emotional distress."

The majority opinion in Woo v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., was written by Justice Mary Fairhurst and signed by Tom Chambers, Susan Owens, Richard Sanders and Bobbe Bridge. Fireman's had refused to defend Woo in the suit brought by Tina Alberts, the employee he was performing a dental procedure on.

Fireman's refused to defend under the professional liability provision on the grounds that the acts alleged in Alberts' complaint did not arise out of the provision of dental services. It refused to defend under the employment practices liability provision on the grounds that the complaint did not allege sexual harassment, discrimination, or wrongful discharge as those terms were defined by the policy. It refused to defend under the general liability provision on the grounds that the alleged practical joke was intentional and was not considered a "business activity." The Supreme Court ruled that Fireman's "had a duty to defend under the professional liability and general liability provisions but not under the employment practices liability provision."

(Excerpt) Read more at blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dentist; insurance; prank; washingtonstate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
Could these be liberal judges? Any bets?

"Today's majority decision rewards Dr. Woo's obnoxious behavior and allows him to profit handsomely, receiving a total of $750,000, triple the damages paid to the real victim of his intentional offensive and likely tortious conduct.

1 posted on 7/29/2007, 8:57:12 PM by bobsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

This is incredibly crazy. Maybe it’s time that insurance companies can sue idiots who they insure for irresponsible behavior.
I feel like Alice down the rabbit hole....
susie


2 posted on 7/29/2007, 8:59:24 PM by brytlea (amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
This dentist's actions may not have been strictly illegal, but the Washington State Board of Dentistry reserves the right to revoke the privilege to practice in their state for conduct deemed unprofessional, which is exactly what should happen to this individual.
3 posted on 7/29/2007, 9:04:59 PM by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

What else has this dentist done to anesthetized patients, and taken pictures of?

He certainly won’t feel guilty about doing what he wants.


4 posted on 7/29/2007, 9:05:39 PM by LibFreeOrDie (L'Chaim!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

I guess it would have been different if he’d knocked her out and “filled her cavity”, but implanting tusks as a prank is fine. I wonder what kinds of stuff is covered for gynocologists as “business-related”?


5 posted on 7/29/2007, 9:08:43 PM by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

Dr. Woo should have some amatuer realignment and extraction work done by his former employee’s male relatives.


6 posted on 7/29/2007, 9:46:56 PM by skepsel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

we NEED pix


7 posted on 7/29/2007, 9:52:49 PM by spanalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

“Is it safe?”


8 posted on 7/29/2007, 9:55:47 PM by dfwgator (The University of Florida - Still Championship U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spanalot
we NEED pix

Roger that.


9 posted on 7/29/2007, 10:19:31 PM by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Elections have consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
The wacky dentist needs to brush up on his Photoshop. He could of merely taken her picture and then have his fun. What could she then sue for?
10 posted on 7/29/2007, 10:38:50 PM by Mark was here (Hard work never killed anyone, but why take the chance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham

Not a very good dentist :-)


11 posted on 7/29/2007, 10:44:42 PM by spanalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

As much as I enjoy a good practical joke...this guy was and is just asking for trouble.


12 posted on 7/29/2007, 10:46:11 PM by RichInOC (Stupidity is its own punishment...but sometimes it causes collateral damage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
Could these be liberal judges? Any bets?

All but Sanders voted the prohomosexual marriage side.

Mary Fairhurst and signed by Tom Chambers, Susan Owens, Richard Sanders and Bobbe Bridge. Fairhurst is an unmarried flaming liberal close friend of Gregoire. She also wrote the main dissent on the Defense of MArriage Act, and included a remark that homosexuals are underrepresented in government. That is definitely not the case in Washington. I doubt homosexuals are underrepresentedd on the state supreme court.

Owens is a flaming liberal; as is the drunk-driving, hit and run justice Bobbe Bridge, wife of a son of Ben Bridge of Ben Bridge Jewelery.

Sanders is generally pretty good in most cases, except when it involves judicial corruption.

13 posted on 7/29/2007, 10:52:15 PM by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Emmett McCarthy

“I guess it would have been different if he’d knocked her out and “filled her cavity”, but implanting tusks as a prank is fine. I wonder what kinds of stuff is covered for gynocologists as “business-related”?”

Gynecologists don’t knock you out with sedatives. Dentists can get away with all kinds of kinky stuff. Mine is terrible about that, I think.


14 posted on 7/30/2007, 12:49:04 AM by bukkdems (Western democracies! Ban the niqab in public.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bukkdems

You THINK??!!


15 posted on 7/30/2007, 12:58:52 AM by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Emmett McCarthy

Well, I’m not really sure since I was sedated.


16 posted on 7/30/2007, 1:50:06 AM by bukkdems (Western democracies! Ban the niqab in public.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine; MotleyGirl70; Cagey; Mr. Brightside; Rb ver. 2.0; lesser_satan; HOTTIEBOY; jdm; ...
Tim Whatley?

Seinfeld Ping List - The Ping List About Nothing. On the list - off the list. Conrad the handiman (Conrad, Connie or Con) says whatever you want is fine with him.

17 posted on 7/30/2007, 1:58:18 AM by Larry Lucido (Hunter 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bukkdems

I hope it’s not like the gal who told me once, “If you (have sex)with me and I find out about it,....”

Maybe I should look for a lady dentist?

Had an emergency angioplasty a few months back and the cardiologist asked me before he started if I’d taken Viagra or anything. I just said, “Boy, if I only had a reason...” Some of the ladies on his crew had real pretty eyes, but with the surgical hats and masks, I just couldn’t tell...


18 posted on 7/30/2007, 2:36:23 AM by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

LOL. Wrong yes. Funny yes.

The pictures had to be entered into evidence no ?


19 posted on 7/30/2007, 3:18:55 AM by festus (I'm a fRedneck and proud of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
Definite candidate for the "WTF was I thinking!" award.
20 posted on 7/30/2007, 6:56:31 AM by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson