Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

There was a catastrophic failure at the Spokane waste water treatment plant. One man was killed, and two others were severely injured. The survivors, including Respondent Larry Michaels, successfully sued Appellant CH2M Hill, the engineering firm that worked for the city at the time of the accident. The City of Spokane, as employer of Respondents, was immune from liability under the Industrial Insurance Act. All parties agreed that the City was negligent. The issue at trial was whether CH2M Hill was also negligent. On appeal to the Supreme Court, CH2M Hill challenged the trial judge's rulings on its liability as well as twenty-six other findings of fact. Of importance here was whether the City's immunity could be imputed to CH2M Hill under the same insurance act. The Supreme Court dissected all twenty-six points in its review, and concluded that CH2M Hill was not entitled to the same immunity as the City. The Court agreed with all rulings of the trial court. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision in the case.

Samantha A. is a 15-year-old with a wide range of medical maladies. Samantha is unable to perform a many activities necessary for independent living. The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) determined that Samantha is eligible for 24-hour institutional care because of the extreme nature of her needs. Because Samantha is cared for by a single mother, Samantha qualified for the Medicaid Home and Community Based Waiver Program so that she can receive benefits at home and not be institutionalized. As part of the in-home benefits, Samantha receives Medicaid Personal Care (MPC). DSHS assessed Samantha as needing 90 hours of MPC per month. In 2005, DSHS adopted changes to its assessment formula pertaining to MPC. Under the new rules, Samantha's MPC hours were reduced. Samantha petitioned the Superior Court for review of the DSHS reassessment. The court invalidated some of the DSHS rule changes. DSHS appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the rule changes were valid. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court, finding the rule changes invalid under the Medicaid laws. The Court affirmed the superior court's decision.

Washington Imaging Services is a medical imaging company that retains Overlake Imaging Associates as an independent contractor. Overlakeâs radiologists interpret the images that Washington Imaging generates. Washington Imaging pays Overlake a percentage of net receipts pursuant to the terms of a contract between them. Though patients know that doctors interpret the images taken by Washington Imaging, they do not know that Overlakeâs doctors review their images. The issue for review by the Supreme Court centered on whether Washington Imaging must pay business and occupation (B&O) tax on the entire amount it received from patients, or whether the amounts that Washington Imaging paid Overlake qualify as âpass throughâ payments on which Washington Imaging does not owe the tax. The trial court ruled in the Department of Revenueâs favor, holding that the amounts paid to Overlake do not qualify for pass-through treatment. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court found that âWashington Imaging does not act in an agentâs capacity to pass payments from the patients through to Overlake. All of the payments received by Washington Imaging constitute gross income. . . and the B&O tax is owed on the entire amount that Washington Imaging receives.â

Petitioner Timothy Martin appealed his conviction on kidnapping and robbery charges. His principal claim on appeal was that the State prosecutor violated his constitutional rights when, on cross-examination at trial, the prosecutor inferred Petitioner had tailored his testimony to be consistent with police reports, witness statements and testimony presented by prior witnesses. After a thorough review of the pertinent case law and clauses of the federal and state constitutions, the Supreme Court found no violation of Petitionerâs constitutional rights. The Court affirmed Defendantâs conviction.

Washington residents who were consumers of allegedly illegal debt adjustment programs filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants Global Client Solutions, LLC (GCS) and Rocky Mountain Bank and Trust (RMBT). Defendants managed and held âspecial purpose accountsâ as part of their adjustment programs. Payments to consumersâ creditors were authorized from these accounts. When enough money accumulated in a consumerâs account, Defendants would attempt to use the funds to negotiate settlement with creditors on terms favorable to the consumer. Defendants charged consumers various fees for its services. GCSâ earnings came from the fees they charged directly to the special purpose account holders. RMBT did not receive fees, but benefited by holding Plaintiffsâ money without paying interest. In 2009, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a cease and desist order that required a reformation of RMBTâs banking practices. GCS subsequently stopped opening new accounts at RMBT. Later that year, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against GCS and RMBT on behalf of all consumers who has special purpose accounts. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington certified three questions to the state Supreme Court regarding interpretation of state law in the Plaintiffsâ case. In response, the Supreme Court concluded that GCS is a âdebt adjusterâ and as such, is not exempt from liability under state law. Furthermore, the Court concluded that debt settlement companies that worked with GCS and RMBT are likely subject to the stateâs debt adjusting statute fee limits, depending on whether they are debt adjusters providing debt adjustment services.

Washingtonâs criminal rules authorize a trial judge to release a person before trial, subject to electronic home monitoring (EHM). If convicted of a felony, the defendant is entitled to have the days spent on pretrial EHM credited against any sentence of confinement he or she may receive. Petitioner Joshua Harris pled guilty to two misdemeanors and sought credit for his time spent on EHM. When the trial court did not give him the credit, Petitioner petitioned the Superior Court for a writ of habeas corpus alleging unlawful restraint because he did not receive the credit. The Superior Court granted the writ and ordered the trial court to grant the credit. The appellate court reversed the habeas court order. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that according to state law, there were rational bases for treating felons and misdemeanants differently when crediting EHM. Petitioner was not entitled to the credit he sought as a misdemeanant. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the appellate courtâs decision to reverse the trial courtâs grant of credit for time served under EHM.

Robin Farris filed six charges against the Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer Dale Washam. Ms. Farris charged that Mr. Washam violated whistleblower protections, retaliated against his employees, grossly wasted public funds, failed to cooperate with discrimination and retaliation investigations, and violated his oath of office. Ms. Farris appeared pro se, and there were technical flaws with the filing of her six charges against Mr. Washam. Through the course of the proceedings, Ms. Farris amended her charges to comply with the courtâs rules of pleading. Mr. Washam contended that there was no statutory authority to allow the recall charges to be amended, and because the original filing was fatally flawed, the Supreme Court should dismiss the entire recall effort. On March 3, 2011, the Supreme Court entered a brief order that affirmed the lower courtâs decision to allow the recall effort to proceed. The Courtâs May 12, 2011 order set forth the reasons for its March decision. The Court affirmed the trial court in all aspects.

Petitioner Michael Williams drove away from a car dealership without paying for new tires and wheels. An employee called the police, and officers tracked down Petitioner at his girlfriendâs home. Petitioner admitted that he had driven away, but to avoid discovery of an outstanding warrant against him, Petitioner gave a fake name. Petitioner was convicted of first-degree theft, making false statements to an officer, and for obstructing law enforcement by giving a fake name. Petitioner appealed his obstruction conviction, arguing that legislative history and case law show that the trial court misinterpreted the applicable statute. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding that obstruction requires more than just a statementâit requires some conduct in addition to making the statement. The Court vacated Petitionerâs conviction on the obstruction charge alone, but affirmed the lower courtsâ decisions in all other respects.

Petitioner Jack Sims appealed only part of his sentence stemming from child molestation charges. As his defense against the charges, Petitioner argued that the contact he had with the victim was an isolated event, and that the evidence supported his contention at trial. The Department of Corrections recommended Petitioner receive a âspecial sex offender sentencing alternativeâ (SSOSA) sentence. The recommendation was supported by testimony from an expert that opined that Petitioner had a very low risk of re-offending. The trial court ordered a lifetime âno-contactâ order, and banished Petitioner from the city and county in which the victim lived. Petitioner challenged the banishment portion of his sentence, arguing that it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed that the sentence was unconstitutional, and concluded that the proper remedy in this case would be a resentencing for the limited purpose of narrowly tailoring the geographic condition of Petitionerâs SSOSA sentence that banished him from the county. The court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

A jury found Petitioner Gale West to be a sexually violent predator, and the trial court ordered him to be civilly committed. The appellate court affirmed the lower courtâs order. Petitioner appealed, seeking a new trial because he believed he was prejudiced by the trial courtâs evidentiary rulings. The Supreme Court found that although âsome errors occurred, they were harmless.â The Court affirmed the appellate courtâs decision.