Bennett v. United States, 539 P.3d 361

In May 2009 Bennett underwent sinus surgery at Bremerton Naval Hospital; nasal packing was inserted/removed and she subsequently developed persistent neurocognitive symptoms. She was not diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury attributable to the nasal packing until December 2017.
Bennett filed an administrative FTCA claim in August 2018 and sued the United States in federal court within the FTCA six‑month filing window.
The United States moved to dismiss under Washington’s medical‑malpractice eight‑year statute of repose, RCW 4.16.350(3), arguing Bennett’s cause of action was extinguished by May 2017 (eight years after the 2009 events).
The federal district court certified two state‑constitutional questions to the Washington Supreme Court concerning (1) the privileges and immunities clause (Wash. Const. art. I, § 12) and (2) the right to access courts (art. I, § 10).
The Washington Supreme Court held that the eight‑year statute of repose (as reenacted in 2006) violates article I, § 12 because it grants immunity to certain defendants and is not supported by a sufficient nexus to the legislature’s stated purposes; the court declined to decide the article I, § 10 question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does RCW 4.16.350(3)’s eight‑year statute of repose violate the privileges and immunities clause (Wash. Const. art. I, § 12)?	Bennett: The repose can extinguish claims before they accrue (when cause is undiscoverable), depriving the fundamental right to pursue common‑law causes of action.	U.S.: The statute is a legitimate legislative classification supported by reasonable grounds (reduce malpractice insurance costs, bar stale/untrustworthy claims, legislative compromise); exceptions mitigate harshness.	Held: Yes. The statute implicates the fundamental right to pursue common‑law claims and, as reenacted in 2006, fails the § 12 “reasonable ground” test (insufficient nexus to stated purposes).
Does RCW 4.16.350(3) violate the right to access courts (Wash. Const. art. I, § 10)?	Bennett: Repose prevents access when injury/cause is discovered after repose expires.	U.S.: (contested) statute is constitutional; lower courts should apply it.	Held: Not reached. The court resolved the case on article I, § 12 grounds.

Schroeder v. Weighall, 179 Wn.2d 566 (2014) (establishes two‑step article I, § 12 test: (1) does law grant a privilege/immunity; (2) is there a reasonable ground for it)
DeYoung v. Providence Med. Ctr., 136 Wn.2d 136 (1998) (struck down prior medical‑malpractice repose as failing rational‑basis review; basis for legislative reenactment)
1000 Va. Ltd. P’ship v. Vertecs Corp., 158 Wn.2d 566 (2006) (distinguishes statutes of limitation and statutes of repose; explains discovery rule accrual)
CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U.S. 1 (2014) (explains repose periods bar causes of action before accrual and are measured from last culpable act)
Ruth v. Dight, 75 Wn.2d 660 (1969) (adopted the discovery rule of accrual under Washington law)