Martin v. Wash. State Dep't of Corr.
| Decision Date | 26 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 100103-7 (certified C20-0311-JCC) |
| Citation | 510 P.3d 321 |
| Parties | Certification from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Timothy MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Steven Hammond, Kenneth Lauren, and Phu Ngo, Defendants. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Dan N. Fiorito III, The Law Office of Dan N. Fiorito III, 2470 Westlake Ave N., Suite #201, Seattle, WA, 98109, Michael Charles Kahrs, Kahrs Law Firm PS, 2208 Nw Market St. Ste. 414, Seattle, WA, 98107-4097, for Plaintiff.
Aaron Michael Williams, Washington Attorney General's Office, Corrections Division, 1125 Washington Street Se, Olympia, WA, 98504-4010, Sara Avet Cassidey, Washington Attorney General's Office, 7141 Cleanwater Dr. Sw, P.O. Box 40126, Olympia, WA, 98504-0126, for Defendant.
Valerie Davis Mcomie, Attorney at Law, 4549 Nw Aspen St., Camas, WA, 98607-8302, Daniel Edward Huntington, Richter-Wimberley PS, 422 W. Riverside Ave. Ste. 1300, Spokane, WA, 99201-0305, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Wa State Association for Justice Foundation.
¶ 1 This case asks whether RCW 7.70.150 1 motion for summary judgment, the federal district court certified three questions of Washington state law to this court:
Order, Martin v. Wash. State Dep't of Corr. , No. C-20-0311-JCC, at 2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 19, 2021).
¶ 2 We hold RCW 7.70.150 invalid on its face based on our prior case holding3 and on statutory language that does not differentiate between private and public defendants. Because we answer certified question 1 in the affirmative, we do not need to reach questions 2 and 3.
¶ 3 Timothy Martin was a prisoner incarcerated at the Washington State Reformatory in the Monroe Correctional Complex throughout all events relevant to this litigation. On January 26, 2012, while performing his job in the prison, Mr. Martin was injured. Several months of ongoing pain followed. Initially, Dr. Kenneth Lauren only prescribed pain medication before an ultrasound revealed that Mr. Martin had a hernia. Dr. Michael Eickerman performed inguinal hernia repair surgery on Mr. Martin in February 2013.
¶ 4 Although the surgery was reported as successful, Mr. Martin began to experience extreme pain at the site of the surgery. He was given a hot-water bottle in September 2013 but received no further treatment for his symptoms. A 2014 ultrasound showed no recurrence of the hernia, and a CT request in July 2014 was denied as being not medically necessary. The DOC's Care Review Committee (CRC) approved Mr. Martin for a follow-up visit with Dr. Eickerman in August 2014, and the doctor gave him injections for pain. Mr. Martin reported marginal relief from pain following the injections. A request to repeat the injections was denied by the CRC in November 2014 as not medically necessary because Mr. Martin was able to walk and perform basic functions. The pain continued throughout 2015, with Mr. Martin receiving only intermittent prescription pain medication. An ultrasound and a CT scan were authorized in January 2016 with inconsistent indications of a recurrence of the hernia. At this time, according to Mr. Martin, Dr. Lauren e-mailed his colleagues to claim that Mr. Martin was merely alleging pain to get drugs. Clerk's Papers (CP), Doc. 54, at 6. Dr. Lauren did, however, authorize another consultation with Dr. Eickerman, who recommended exploratory surgery to determine the source of Mr. Martin's pain. The CRC denied that surgery in July 2016 as not medically necessary because Mr. Martin could walk without "intractable pain." CP, Doc. 69, at 20. When Mr. Martin's hot-water bottle broke in 2017, the CRC rejected a replacement due to a lack of "objective findings" that he was in pain. CP, Doc. 69, at 21.
¶ 5 While the CRC approved another CT scan in May 2018, no further medical action was taken until November 2018, when Mr. Martin received a new hot-water bottle after he engaged counsel. The CRC subsequently approved Dr. Eickerman to perform exploratory surgery. That surgery was performed in March 2019; three undissolved stitches—used to hold medical mesh in place—were found at the location where Mr. Martin had reported pain. Dr. Eickerman removed the stitches, resolving Mr. Martin's pain issues.
¶ 6 Mr. Martin objected vigorously to the quality of his medical treatment throughout this period. As required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, Mr. Martin filed several grievances against the DOC prior to commencing legal action. He also filed a state tort claim under RCW 4.92.100 and RCW 4.92.110 in August 2014.5 In 2015, Mr. Martin joined a class action lawsuit, Haldane v. Hammond , No. 15-CV-1810, 2017 WL 4122545 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 18, 2017), as a named plaintiff. The Haldane lawsuit claimed that the CRC withheld "necessary medical care from patients with serious and painful medical conditions" in violation of inmates’ Eighth Amendment rights. CP, Doc. 34, Ex. 1, at 1. The district court, however, declined to certify the class in Haldane . Mr. Martin voluntarily dismissed his claims under that action in March 2019.
¶ 7 In January 2020, Mr. Martin initiated the current action by filing suit against the DOC in Snohomish County Superior Court. The DOC removed the case to federal court, and in February 2021, Mr. Martin amended his complaint to add DOC Chief Medical Director Dr. Steven Hammond, Dr. Lauren,6 and physician assistant Phu Ngo as defendants. Mr. Martin alleges, based on his medical treatment between 2012 and 2019, that the DOC violated his federal civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and provided negligent medical care under state medical malpractice laws.
¶ 8 The DOC7 moved for summary judgment, claiming that the statute of limitations for Mr. Martin's claims had expired and that Mr. Martin had failed to file a certificate of merit as required under RCW 7.70.150. Federal Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan issued a report and recommendation recommending dismissal of Mr. Martin's federal and state claims as to medical events occurring before the three-year statute of limitations.8 CP, Doc. 74, at 9. As to the certificate of merit, the judge cited Reed v. Hammond , C16-5993 BHS-DWC, 2020 WL 133191 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2020), which had declined to enforce the requirements of RCW 7.70.150 or to certify a question to this court as to the statute's legitimacy. Instead, following Reed , the magistrate judge determined that state precedent had likely deemed RCW 7.70.150 unconstitutional. CP, Doc. 74, at 13. Even if the statute were constitutional as to a state defendant, Reed held that the state courts would not likely determine such a decision to be retroactive in application.
¶ 9 The DOC objected to these findings and requested that this court determine the constitutionality of the statute under Washington law. Accordingly, the district court certified three questions to this court.
¶ 10 This court may determine questions certified by a federal court under RCW 2.60.020 and RAP 16.16(a) when the question involves state law that "has not been clearly determined and does not involve a question determined by reference to the United States Constitution." We review certified questions of law de novo, In re F5 Networks, Inc. , 166 Wash.2d 229, 236, 207 P.3d 433 (2009), based on the certified record provided by the federal court. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Onvia, Inc. , 165 Wash.2d 122, 126, 196 P.3d 664 (2008). In reviewing the constitutionality of statutes, the appropriate standard of review is also de novo. Davison v. State , 196 Wash.2d 285, 293, 466 P.3d 231 (2020).
¶ 11 RCW 7.70.150 was enacted in 2006 as part of a larger reform effort regarding medical malpractice. SECOND SUBSTITUTE H.B. 2292 (enacted in LAWS OF 2006, ch. 8) (2006 Bill). The statute provides that, prior to filing suit for medical malpractice, "the plaintiff must file a certificate of merit at the time of commencing the action." RCW 7.70.150(1). That certificate of merit needs to be "executed by a health care provider who meets the qualifications of an expert" and "must contain a statement ... based on the information known at the time ... that there is a reasonable probability that the defendant's conduct did not follow the accepted standard of care required." RCW 7.70.150(2), (3). If the plaintiff fails to file the certificate of merit, the case may be dismissed. RCW 7.70.150(5)(a).
¶ 12 We addressed the constitutionality of the statute in Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, PS , 166 Wash.2d 974, 216 P.3d 374 (2009). In that case, we held that RCW 7.70.150 was unconstitutional on two separate grounds: violation of the right of access to the courts and violation of the separation of powers. Putman , 166 Wash.2d at 977-78, 216 P.3d 374. Putman involved a suit against a private defendant; here, the suit is brought against the State.
¶ 13 Regarding the certificate of merit's impediment to accessing the courts, we noted that, under both the federal and state constitutions, such access constitutes " ‘[t]he very essence of civil liberty’ " and " ‘the bedrock foundation upon which rest all the people's rights and...
To continue reading
Request your trial