Today's arguments - October 28, 2010
The Court will hear arguments in four cases today. (Docket, briefs)
Morning session (9:00 a.m.)
Mills v. Western Washington University, No. 83597-7. The question here is whether holding a closed disciplinary hearing violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Western Washington University brought disciplinary charges against a professor, Perry Mills, for verbally abusive behavior. Over Mills’ objection, the charges were heard in a closed session. On appeal, the appellate court held that the closed hearing violated the APA. The University argues that because its internal rules allow a closed hearing, the hearing was allowed to be closed under the APA.
Beggs v. Washington, No. 84098-9. Tyler DeLeon was starved to death by his adoptive mother. Several doctors were sued on behalf of Tyler and his surviving siblings based on the claim that they hadn’t reported signs of child abuse. The court dismissed claims based on the mandatory reporting statute, finding that the doctors’ actions related to child abuse reporting are “health care” governed by the medical malpractice statutes. The plaintiff claims that reporting is done for legal purposes, not to provide medical care, and so it is not health care under the statutes. The court also dismissed a wrongful death claim on behalf of Tyler’s siblings because they are not financially dependent on Tyler. The plaintiff argues that the adoption support payments made to Tyler’s adoptive mother could have been used for joint family expenses, thus making the siblings dependent on Tyler. The issues before the Supreme Court are: 1) Whether the adoptive siblings of a deceased adopted child were dependent on him for support under the wrongful death statute based on the parent’s receipt of adoption support payments for the child; and 2) Does the medical malpractice statute preclude a civil action against health care providers under the mandatory child abuse reporting statute.
Afternoon session (1:30 p.m.)
Hardee v. DSHS, No. 83728-7. The issue before the Supreme Court is whether a daycare license is a professional license requiring a higher burden of proof to revoke. Kathleen Hardee ran a daycare until DSHS revoked her license for various reasons. Hardee appealed the revocation, and the Administrative Law Judge overturned the revocation. DSHS then appealed to Superior Court, which found that the license revocation was proper by a preponderance of the evidence. Hardee argues that she has a constitutional interest in her license which requires the revocation to be supported by “clear, cogent, and convincing” evidence. The appellate court disagreed, finding that a daycare license is a site license rather than a professional license, and thus “preponderance of the evidence” was the proper burden of proof.
Dolan v. King County, No. 82842-3. Whether the members of King County’s public defender organizations are public employees under the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS). King County provides public defense services through contracts with four nonprofit organizations, over which the county has some oversight. Kevin Dolan filed suit against the county on behalf of these organizations’ members seeking benefits under PERS. Dolan claims that the organizations are public entities. The trial court decided that the organizations’ members should be considered public employees under PERS, but certified the issue for appeal before proceeding with the case.
