Judge, Court of Appeals of Washington
King County Public Hospital District No. 2 v. Department of Health
Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012-05-04 · cited 10×
The case involved a challenge by Evergreen and other hospice providers to a health law judge’s (HLJ) order approving a settlement between the Department of Health and Odyssey Healthcare. The settlement granted Odyssey’s 2006 certificate of need (CN) application to provide hospice services in King County, resolving both Odyssey’s administrative appeals of the Department’s denial and its related federal lawsuit. The superior court reversed the HLJ, ruling that Evergreen had been denied a full adjudicative hearing, that the Department had acted arbitrarily by relying on post-record evidence of need, and that the HLJ had failed to verify that Odyssey met all four CN criteria. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the HLJ’s approval of the settlement was not arbitrary and capricious because the Department had followed statutory notice-and-comment procedures for settlements, the HLJ had discretion to consider updated need data in evaluating the agreement, and the settlement process did not require a full re-adjudication of every CN criterion.
healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure
Fowler v. Johnson
Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012-04-09 · cited 19×
In Fowler v. Johnson, a wage dispute arose when dermatologist Amber Fowler sued her former employer, Donald Johnson, for unpaid wages (seeking double damages under RCW 49.52.070), breach of contract for spa referral fees, and related claims after Johnson failed to pay amounts she claimed were owed upon her departure. Johnson did not respond to the complaint, resulting in an order of default and a default judgment that included double damages; he later moved to vacate the default orders under CR 55(c) and CR 60(b), citing mistake and excusable neglect. The trial court initially denied the motion but on reconsideration vacated the default only as to the unpaid wages claim while also vacating it on the remaining claims, concluding it lacked authority to vacate selectively. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard, as nothing prevents partial vacating of default orders on specific claims when the moving party fails to meet the White v. Holm factors for the others.
labor & employmentprocedure
King County v. DEPT. OF DEVELOPMENT
Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012-04-02 · cited 3×
In this case, King County’s Department of Development and Environmental Services issued a notice of violation against property owner Jeff Spencer and operator Ron Shear for running an organic materials processing business on farmland that the county claimed was an unauthorized use within a critical wetland and flood-hazard area. The county hearing examiner ruled that the business was a valid nonconforming use and that the county had not proved the property contained a critical area; the superior court later reversed that decision under the Land Use Petition Act. The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, reinstated the hearing examiner’s decision, and held that the examiner’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the examiner had authority to impose conditions on the use. The court further concluded that the examiner did not exceed his jurisdiction by directing the county to process any required permits in light of those findings.
environmentpropertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure
Lake Chelan Shores v. St. Paul Fire
Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012-03-12 · cited 2×
This case was an insurance coverage dispute in which the Lake Chelan Shores Homeowners Association sued St. Paul Fire & Marine for breach of contract, bad faith, and Consumer Protection Act violations after discovering building rot in 2006 and claiming it amounted to covered "collapse" from hidden decay during St. Paul's 1996-1999 policies. The trial court granted summary judgment to St. Paul on all claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the association failed to present admissible evidence of collapse during the policy periods because its experts' methodology for retroactively determining collapse conditions was not generally accepted in the scientific community under the Frye standard, and the association offered no contrary evidence on that point. The extra-contractual claims were also properly dismissed because the association had already decided to repair the buildings before tendering its claim, so any alleged investigative failures by St. Paul did not proximately cause the expenses incurred. The court further found no abuse of discretion in denying related discovery and continuance motions, as the information sought would not have led to admissible evidence.
business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability
Davis v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF LABOR
Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012-02-06 · cited 2×
In Davis v. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, an injured worker who received industrial insurance benefits settled a third-party claim against an uninsured motorist carrier for a $75,000 lump sum that did not allocate any portion to general damages such as pain and suffering. The Department applied its statutory distribution formula under RCW 51.24.060 to the full settlement amount and asserted a lien for benefits paid. After the Washington Supreme Court held in Tobin that the Department cannot recover from portions of a settlement allocated to general damages, Davis sought recalculation of the distribution order to recognize some of her settlement as exempt general damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's denial of relief, ruling that Tobin's limitation applies only to allocated settlements and that unallocated pre-Tobin settlements remain fully subject to distribution under prior precedent such as Mills and Gersema.
labor & employmenttorts & liability
State v. Hayes
Court of Appeals of Washington · 2011-12-19 · cited 14×
In State v. Hayes, a jury convicted Cordarrel Hayes of second-degree assault after his girlfriend, Shanay Shaw, was injured during an altercation outside a nightclub; Hayes disputed the cause of her injuries and raised three main challenges on appeal. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Hayes had waived his constitutional right to confront witnesses by his actions and that any error in excluding letters Shaw wrote to him from jail was harmless. On the sentencing issue, however, the court remanded for resentencing because the State had not presented evidence that Hayes’s 2005 Ohio conviction was comparable to a Washington felony and could not rely solely on his failure to object. The decision rested on established confrontation-clause waiver principles, harmless-error analysis, and the precedent in State v. Hunley requiring affirmative proof of prior convictions at sentencing.
criminal lawprocedure