Edward Hartnett, V. Department Of Labor And Industries
85972-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Sep 30, 2024Background
- Edward Hartnett suffered a work-related injury in 2001; his industrial claim was closed with a permanent partial disability (PPD) award in 2009.
- Hartnett's claim was reopened in 2011, and after further proceedings, a settlement in 2016 increased his mental health PPD award and granted back time loss benefits in exchange for claim closure.
- Hartnett later learned the 2016 settlement made his claim “over seven,” limiting eligibility for nonmedical benefits unless the Director exercised discretion.
- After L&I denied requested nonmedical benefits, Hartnett pursued administrative and court actions but waited several years to seek to vacate the 2016 settlement via a CR 60 motion.
- The superior court denied his CR 60 motion as untimely and found no basis for relief under CR 60(c), leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of CR 60(b) Motion | Motion was filed as soon as Hartnett learned it was the proper procedure; delay excusable due to ignorance and ongoing litigation | Hartnett was or should have been aware of basis for motion years prior; substantial and unreasonable delay | Motion untimely; delay not excused |
| Prejudice to L&I from Delay | No significant prejudice to L&I due to Hartnett's ongoing challenges | Prejudiced by years of litigation, deprivation of funds, and potential reopening of settled issues | L&I prejudiced by Hartnett’s delay |
| Fraud or Misrepresentation under CR 60(b)(4) | L&I misrepresented the effect of the settlement and counsel failed to notify Hartnett | No evidence of actionable fraud; notice given by L&I in 2017 | No grounds for relief under CR 60(b)(4) |
| Independent Action under CR 60(c) | Relief also available under CR 60(c) even if CR 60(b) was untimely | No independent action commenced to invoke CR 60(c) | No basis for CR 60(c) relief; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Luckett v. Boeing Co., 98 Wn. App. 307 (explaining timeliness for CR 60 motions depends on reasonable time post-awareness)
- Rivers v. Wash. State Conf. of Mason Contractors, 145 Wn.2d 674 (client bound by acts of attorney unless fraud)
- Dellen Wood Prods., Inc. v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 179 Wn. App. 601 (ignorance of the law does not excuse late action)