Charles Horowitz

This case was a medical malpractice suit brought by the family of Timothy Keogan against his family physician, an emergency room doctor, and the hospital where Keogan died of a heart attack. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for the defendants. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court should have given an informed-consent instruction regarding diagnostic tests for angina and should have ruled as a matter of law that the emergency-room physician was negligent for failing to perform an EKG; the case was remanded for a new trial limited to the issue of proximate cause. The court reasoned that the physician had not disclosed available tests or his suspicion of angina despite symptoms that warranted them, and that the emergency-room omissions breached the standard of care.

healthcaretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over ownership of a family ranch in Washington after the death of one spouse. E.A. Norris and his wife Irene executed reciprocal wills in 1970 leaving the survivor a life estate in the ranch with remainders to their adopted son Henry and grandson Ernie, but then signed a community property agreement two months later that would have given the survivor full ownership without probate. After Irene's death, the estate was probated according to the will with E.A. acting as personal representative, and the property was distributed per the will's terms; years later E.A. sought to quiet title in himself based on the community property agreement. The trial court ruled for E.A., but the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed that reversal. The court held that E.A. was bound by the probate proceedings and his attorney's actions in following the will, which superseded any rights under the community property agreement.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case consolidated two appeals concerning the superior court's jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals in workers' compensation matters under RCW 51.52.110. In Spokane v. Department of Labor & Indus., the City appealed a finding of total disability, and in In re Saltis, a self-insured employer appealed an award for hearing loss; both involved challenges to whether the Director of the Department of Labor and Industries had been properly served with the notice of appeal. The Supreme Court of Washington ruled that substantial compliance with the statute's service requirements suffices to confer jurisdiction if the Director actually received notice or if service was effected in a manner reasonably calculated to provide notice, rather than demanding strict compliance. It reversed the dismissal in the Spokane matter for remand to determine the adequacy of service and affirmed the upholding of jurisdiction in Saltis based on evidence of the Department's mail routing procedures.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned whether the Town of North Bonneville, an optional code city, could lawfully purchase land from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of relocating the town to accommodate a federal powerhouse project on the Columbia River, with the town intending to use some land for public purposes like streets and parks while later reselling or leasing other portions to unidentified private buyers at fair market value. The Washington Supreme Court answered the certified questions by holding that the town had authority to enter the land transactions and that the purchases did not violate article 8, section 7 of the state constitution. The court reasoned that optional code cities possess broad contractual powers, the acquisition served a public purpose of preserving the municipality's viability and ability to provide services, and no identifiable private party would receive a loan of municipal credit since sales would occur at market rates without engineered benefits to specific entities.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In State v. Turpin, the defendant was charged with negligent homicide after her car crossed the center line and collided with another vehicle, killing its driver; a state trooper directed hospital staff to draw her blood for alcohol testing after arresting her but without informing her of the arrest or her statutory right to independent testing. The trial court admitted the blood test results over the defendant's motion to suppress, leading to her conviction, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that RCW 46.20.308(1) requires officers to inform a person arrested for negligent homicide of the right to additional independent blood tests, even though the statute exempts such arrests from the consent requirement; the court reasoned that the statutory notice provision remained in effect to protect the defendant's ability to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence, and its violation required exclusion of the state's test results.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a prosecution for welfare fraud under RCW 74.08.331, where defendant Nancy Ann Ermert was convicted after not disclosing a savings account she established with funds from public assistance payments while receiving benefits, which later exceeded DSHS resource limits when used toward a car purchase. The court reversed the conviction and directed dismissal of the proceedings. The core reasoning was that the state presented no evidence the defendant failed to report any information required by law, as savings accumulated solely from assistance payments did not constitute reportable "income" or "resources" under the governing statute and regulations, and thus no elements of the crime were proven even if the facts were uncontroverted.

criminal law