Today's arguments - November 9, 2010
Today the Court will hear four arguments as usual, two in the morning session, and two in the afternoon. (Docket, briefs)
Morning session (9:00 a.m.)
Samantha A v. WA Dept. of Social & Health Services, No. 84325-2. Whether it violates Federal Medicaid laws to reduce a disabled child's paid care due to the child's age or if the child lives with parents.
As part of Medicaid, DSHS provides paid personal care for disabled people. The extent of the care is based on a variety of eligibility factors that are re-evaluated periodically. A “children's personal care rule” reduces the amount of paid care a child can receive based on the child's age or if the child is living with parents (who already have a duty to care for the child).
This rule was challenged on behalf of a child named Samantha A. The challenge claims (and the Superior Court agreed) that the children's personal care rule violates Federal Medicaid law “requiring comparability of amount, duration, and scope of services among all recipients.” This is because the rule treats disabled children differently based on their ages and on their relation to their caregivers.
News Tribune v. Honorable James Cayce, No. 83645-1. Whether the public has a right to view a deposition taken in a courtroom and presided over by a judge.
Pierce County Superior Court judge Michael Hecht was charged with harassment and patronizing a prostitute. James Cayce, a visiting judge from King County, presided over the case. One of the key witnesses was in custody, so the prosecution received permission to conduct his deposition in an available courtroom. (The courtrooms have secure access to the jail.) Judge Cayce was present at the parties' request to rule on objections.
A reporter from the News Tribune was denied access to the deposition proceedings. The Tribune filed for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Cayce to order the prosecution to produce a transcript and video recording of the deposition. The Tribune argues that since the deposition was presided over by a judge in court, they had a constitutional right to be present. Judge Cayce argues that the deposition was not a court proceeding.
Afternoon session (1:30 p.m.)
State v. Sims, No. 83779-1. Whether an appellate court striking down an element of a special sex offender sentencing agreement should ask the trial court to rehear just that section, or the entire agreement.
Jack Sims was convicted of child molestation and sentenced to life in prison. His sentence was suspended under a Sex Offender Special Sentencing Alternative (SOSSA) sentence. One condition of the SOSSA sentence was that Sims stay out of Cowlitz County and the City of Castle Rock.
Sims appealed this condition. The appellate court found the condition unconstitutional and vacated his sentence, remanding for resentencing. Sims argues that the appellate court should not have vacated the entire sentence because only the “banishment” condition was appealed, and allowing the trial court to reconsider the SOSSA sentence harms his right to appeal (since the trial court could refuse to grant Sims a SOSSA sentence on remand).
Community Transit v. First Transit, No. 83795-1. Concerns which public transport agency is responsible for tort claims from a traffic accident.
Community Transit contracted with First Transit to provide commuter bus service between King and Snohomish Counties. Part of the contract required First Transit to indemnify (pay) Community Transit for tort claims, except for those “resulting solely from the negligence of Community Transit.”
A Community Transit bus and a First Transit bus were involved in a multiple-car accident on I-5. The accident was caused by the negligence of the Community Transit driver and a third party driver; both parties agree that First Transit was not negligent. Community Transit settled several negligence claims by passengers, and filed indemnity claims against First Transit.
Community Transit argues that since the accident was not solely its fault, First Transit must indemnify them under the contract. But the appellate court ruled that the contract does not clearly state that First Transit must indemnify Community Transit even if First Transit did not cause or contribute to the accident. The court found that such a statement would be required to make one party indemnify another for the other party's own negligence, and ruled against Community Transit.
