Liability Reform Coalition says the Washington Supreme Court dealt another
blow to common-sense reform

Decision clears the way for more lawsuits

Seattle—Statement by Liability Reform Coalition (LRC) executive director, Dana Childers, regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Waples v. Yi:

“Today the Washington Supreme Court dismantled a bi-partisan and modest liability reform measure agreed-upon by physicians, personal-injury lawyers, Gov. Gregorie and a majority of the legislature following the heated medical liability debate of 2005.

“The issue at hand is the requirement that plaintiffs give a 90-day notice before suing healthcare providers for malpractice. 

“In its decision, the Supreme Court tossed out the 90-day notice declaring it was unconstitutional despite the fact that the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the exact opposite.  And with good reason.  Requirements of notice to file a lawsuit have been adopted by the legislature and upheld by the courts on numerous occasions, both in Washington and around the nation. 

“The Supreme Court has made a concerted effort to eliminate any remains of the bi-partisan reforms enacted in the 2006 legislative session.

“This is the second blow the court has dealt the healthcare system in less than one year in the area of medical liability.  Last fall, the court ruled another innocuous reform as unconstitutional.  In Putnam v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, the court tossed out the requirement that a plaintiff provide a qualified expert at the time of filing a lawsuit that states there is a reasonable probability the defendant’s conduct did not meet the required standard of care. 

“There is little left of the much-lauded 2006 reforms.  It leaves concern as to whether the Supreme Court will let other reforms remain, such as the right for physicians to apologize for an adverse event without it being an admission of guilt.

“It’s important to note that three justices rejected the majority opinion.  Justice Jim Johnson dissented, arguing that none of the long-standing notice requirements have been invalidated by the Supreme Court.  He went on to say that to strike down the 90-day notice requirement ‘further eviscerates the legislative package such that it can no longer be properly called a compromise.  This is not what the legislature, the governor or those other good faith parties at the negotiating table agreed to and we would be wise to avoid such a dramatic revision.’  (Emphasis added)  He was joined in this opinion by Justice Fairhurst and Justice Madsen.”

###