Barbara Durham

This case consolidated appeals from workers' compensation claimants who argued that defense counsel's ex parte contacts with treating physicians before Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals hearings violated the rule from Loudon v. Mhyre prohibiting such contacts in personal injury actions. The court held that the Loudon prohibition does not extend to proceedings under Washington's industrial insurance act, RCW Title 51. The decision rested on statutory provisions, including RCW 51.04.070, that expressly permit physicians to disclose relevant medical information in these administrative proceedings without patient consent or liability, distinguishing them from civil tort actions where the physician-patient privilege applies more strictly. The court found that the policy concerns underlying Loudon, such as risks of unauthorized disclosure, did not outweigh the legislative framework designed for efficient claims handling at any stage of the process.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Curry, three defendants convicted of crimes including second-degree burglary, cocaine possession, and first-degree robbery appealed only the monetary portions of their sentences, which included court costs, victim assessments, and recoupment of counsel fees under former RCW 10.01.160. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the sentences, holding that the statute does not require trial courts to enter specific formal findings on the record about a defendant's ability to pay before imposing costs. The court reasoned that the statute already incorporates constitutional safeguards from Fuller v. Oregon and State v. Barklind by mandating consideration of financial resources, allowing petitions for remission, and prohibiting imprisonment for non-willful failure to pay, with additional protections under RCW 9.94A.200 and contempt statutes. It concluded that the victim penalty assessment is constitutional both facially and as applied to indigent defendants.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved three unrelated personal restraint petitions filed by Washington prisoners challenging convictions or sentences, each contesting the validity of a 1989 statute (RCW 10.73.090 et seq.) that generally imposes a one-year deadline for filing such collateral attacks after a conviction becomes final. The petitioners argued that the time limit unconstitutionally suspends the writ of habeas corpus under the state constitution and violates equal protection, and alternatively that they had not received the required statutory notice of the deadline. The Washington Supreme Court upheld the statute's constitutionality, ruling that it does not suspend habeas corpus rights and satisfies equal protection standards, while also finding that the Department of Corrections' postings of notices in prisons and parole offices provided sufficient notice to the petitioners. The court therefore dismissed the petitions as untimely. Core reasoning centered on the statute's limited exceptions preserving access to relief, the lack of any fundamental right to unlimited collateral review, and affidavits confirming the adequacy of posted notices.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved neighboring property owners in Washington where the Currenses sued Sleek after clear-cutting and grading on Sleek's land increased surface water flow, causing flooding and tree damage on the Currenses' property. The trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the claim under the common enemy doctrine, which generally allows landowners to develop property without liability for surface water effects. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that the doctrine only protects landowners who exercise due care to avoid unnecessary harm to neighbors, and a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether Sleek took such care by failing to install mitigation measures like dry wells or revegetation.

propertytorts & liabilityenvironment

In State v. West, the defendant was convicted of second degree assault after an incident involving his friend, and he challenged the conviction on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. His attorney had not filed a motion in limine to exclude his prior convictions for murder and assault, which deterred him from testifying in his own defense. On remand after an initial appeal, the trial court assessed the defendant's proposed testimony against the prosecution's evidence and concluded there was no reasonable probability it would have changed the jury's verdict. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed, upholding the trial court's determination that the attorney's error did not undermine the outcome. The decision focused on the application of the ineffective assistance standard and the Alexis balancing test for prior convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Timothy Dolson challenging his conviction for driving with a suspended license in the first degree after the Department of Licensing revoked his license in 1990 for being a habitual traffic offender. Dolson argued that the revocation was invalid because DOL sent the required notice of revocation and hearing rights to an incorrect address rather than his official address of record, depriving him of due process. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the failure to follow the statutory notice requirements at the address of record violated Dolson's constitutional right to notice and an opportunity to be heard before revocation. The court reasoned that a revocation not compliant with due process is void and cannot support a later conviction for driving with a revoked license, even if the defendant later learned of the revocation. The decision emphasized that the State bears the burden of proving compliance with due process in such prosecutions.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights