Captain Bruce Nelson v. State Of Washington, 75559-5

Background

Captain Bruce Nelson applied (after invitation) for a Puget Sound pilot's license, passed written and simulator exams, and entered the Board's multi-step supervised training program beginning 2007.
The Board's Training Evaluation Committee monitored progress via supervising-pilot trip report forms (initially a 4-point scale across domains); the Board later changed the form to add domains and a 7-point scale during Nelson's training.
Over ~243 training trips and multiple extensions, supervisors intervened on several occasions (11 after trip 80), including a near-collision at the Pier 86 grain terminal where a supervisor intervened to avoid substantial damage.
The Committee ultimately recommended denial of a license; the Board initially extended training several times and then (after Nelson’s presentation and administrative proceedings) unanimously denied a license.
Nelson pursued full administrative and judicial review, raising claims that Board findings lacked substantial evidence, the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously, rulemaking was required for the trip-report form change, licensing criteria were vague, he was denied due process and a timely hearing, and there were unlawful ex parte communications; the courts affirmed the Board.

Issues

Issue	Nelson's Argument	State/Board's Argument	Held
Whether Board findings (including expert credibility and uniqueness of training) lacked substantial evidence	Findings not supported by substantial evidence; Board improperly credited expert and created unique training	Board relied on committee reports, trip forms, commissioner expertise; credibility determinations are for the Board	Affirmed — substantial evidence supported findings; many challenges abandoned for lack of developed argument
Whether Board decision denying license was arbitrary and capricious or disparate treatment occurred	Decision arbitrary; Nelson was treated more harshly and trips were harder; statistical comparator evidence should control	Board applied same statutory criteria and individualized review of each trainee record; it need not adopt Nelson’s preferred statistical method	Affirmed — not arbitrary or capricious; evaluations were consistent and fact‑based
Whether adopting/altering trip-report form required APA rulemaking	Change constituted a rule establishing licensing standards and thus required notice-and-comment rulemaking	Form tracked performance based on preexisting WAC criteria and merely adjusted recording methodology, not qualifications	Affirmed — no rulemaking violation; form was a recording tool, not a new licensing standard
Whether licensing criteria or process denied due process or were unconstitutionally vague	Criteria vague; delay between training completion and final order denied meaningful opportunity to be heard; review officers engaged in unlawful ex parte contacts	Criteria derive from statute and professional standards; procedural timeline reasonable; alleged ex parte contacts were non‑substantive or unrelated and caused no prejudice	Affirmed — criteria not unconstitutionally vague; no deprivation of due process shown; alleged procedural errors/ex parte communications did not substantially prejudice Nelson

Key Cases Cited

City of Redmond v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 136 Wn.2d 38 (discussing APA record-of-review and deference to agency interpretations)
Bock v. State Bd. of Pilotage Comm'rs, 91 Wn.2d 94 (1978) (Board has considerable discretion in pilotage decisions)
Budget Rent A Car Corp. v. Dep't of Licensing, 144 Wn.2d 889 (2001) (definition and limits of what constitutes an agency "rule")
Haley v. Gen. Constr. Co., 117 Wn.2d 739 (discussing vagueness doctrine and use of common professional understanding)
Chandler v. Office of Ins. Comm'r, 141 Wn. App. 639 (2007) (upholding a licensing standard that uses professional context to give meaning to otherwise vague terms)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (balancing test for procedural due process)