Court awards oral surgeon $750,000 in boar-tusk case
Court Alerts
[##_1L|1298175090.jpg|width="142" height="117" alt=""|_##]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. He later developed the pictures and showed them to employees, and later one of his other employees gave them to the assistant as a birthday present. 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.
Related listings
-
Ohio court: Domestic violence laws for all couples
Court Alerts 07/26/2007Ohio's domestic violence laws do not conflict with the state's ban on gay marriage, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. In a 6-1 decision, justices rejected an argument that the domestic violence law was unenforceable in cases involving un...
-
CA Prohibits Adidas from Selling Kangaroo Shoes
Court Alerts 07/25/2007A court has ruled that the government of California is within its rights to prohibit Adidas from selling kangaroo-hide soccer shoes in the state.U.S. law does not pre-empt a state law banning importation and sale of kangaroo products in California, t...
-
Judge orders trash hauler back to court
Court Alerts 07/25/2007A skeptical Alameda County judge ordered garbage hauler Waste Management on Tuesday to return to court next week to prove it is abiding by his order to collect all the trash in Oakland or face big fines for scores of missed pickups. Superior Court Ju...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.