Greenwald v. Van Handel

Summary

Justice Eveleigh dissented from the majority's conclusion that public policy and the wrongful conduct rule barred the plaintiff's medical malpractice action arising from treatment for viewing child pornography. She would have applied ordinary proximate-cause and comparative-negligence principles, leaving the relationship between the alleged malpractice and the plaintiff's injuries for a jury. She also concluded that the allegations seeking additional treatment and medical expenses independently stated a legally sufficient malpractice claim that should not have been stricken. The dissent would reverse the trial court and deny the motion to strike.