575 P.3d 1267
Wash. Ct. App.2025Background
- C.E., an individual with developmental disabilities and psychiatric disorders, was involuntarily committed to Eastern State Hospital and enrolled in DDA’s Community Protection Program (CPP), which sharply limits community placement options.
- At a recommitment hearing, hospital clinicians testified C.E. remained gravely disabled but had made substantial progress and met most discharge criteria; treatment team favored less restrictive placements (adult family home or residential habilitation center) and opposed return to Lakeland Village.
- DDA testified CPP enrollment (last assessed in 2020) restricted placement options and that reassessment or graduation from the Program generally would not occur while the person remained hospitalized.
- A superior court commissioner granted 180 days’ recommitment but ordered a less restrictive alternative and directed DDA to reassess C.E.’s CPP status, consult the treatment team, resend referrals, and pursue discharge to a residential habilitation center or adult family home within 60 days (Lakeland Village to be last resort).
- DDA moved to revise, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to direct Title 71A agency actions and that any review must proceed under the APA; the superior court denied revision and adopted the commissioner’s order; DDA appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the superior court acted within its original jurisdiction under the Involuntary Treatment Act (ITA) to ensure enforceability of its less restrictive alternative order and did not perform APA judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court had authority in an ITA proceeding to direct DDA to reassess CPP status and take steps to effectuate a less restrictive alternative | Court may order and enforce less restrictive alternatives under RCW 71.05.320; directing reassessment was necessary to effectuate discharge | DDA: court exceeded subject matter jurisdiction and compelled agency action governed by Title 71A, reviewable only under the APA | Held: Court acted within original jurisdiction under the ITA and lawfully ordered reassessment to effectuate its less restrictive alternative |
| Whether the order constituted judicial review of an agency action subject to the APA | Court’s order did not overturn any final agency decision and merely required DDA to reengage its assessment process | DDA: the order effectively reviewed/altered agency benefits decisions and triggered APA procedures | Held: Not judicial review of a final agency action; APA procedures did not apply because no final agency decision was before the court |
| Whether APA exhaustion and other APA requirements barred the court’s order (or whether waiver was needed) | Even if APA implicated, exhaustion could be waived due to grave irreparable harm; in any event APA not applicable | DDA: APA’s procedural prerequisites cannot be bypassed; superior court was acting in appellate capacity when reviewing agency matters | Held: APA inapplicable because court acted in original ITA jurisdiction; waiver language was unnecessary though supported by record evidence of harm |
| Whether the order conflicted with In re Detention of J.S. (court may not dictate specific placements or usurp agency function) | Order did not mandate a specific placement or outcome; it preserved DDA’s eligibility determinations and conditioned discharge on Medicaid eligibility | DDA: J.S. prohibits compelling agency action or dictating placement within Title 71A programs | Held: Consistent with J.S.; courts may require steps to effectuate less restrictive treatment but may not force a specific placement — here the court ordered reassessment, not a particular result |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Detention of J.S., 124 Wn.2d 689, 880 P.2d 976 (1994) (trial courts may order less restrictive treatment but may not mandate a specific placement)
- State v. Ramer, 151 Wn.2d 106, 86 P.3d 132 (2004) (standard for superior court de novo review of commissioner decisions)
- Union Bay Preservation Coalition v. Cosmos Dev. & Admin. Corp., 127 Wn.2d 614, 902 P.2d 1247 (1995) (when superior court reviews administrative decisions it acts in appellate capacity and must follow statutory procedures)
- Diehl v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 153 Wn.2d 207, 103 P.3d 193 (2004) (distinguishing original jurisdiction from appellate review of administrative action)
- Stewart v. Dep’t of Empl. Sec., 191 Wn.2d 42, 419 P.3d 838 (2018) (courts lacking jurisdiction must dismiss; jurisdictional prerequisites are mandatory)