Jones v. State, Dept. of Health, 242 P.3d 825

Background

Jones's pharmacy licenses were summarily suspended by ex parte order on August 17, 1999 for alleged 'unsatisfactory' inspection findings, after which he faced a three-week expedited hearing option.
Board inspectors Wene and Jeppesen conducted four inspections (Dec 1998, Feb 1999, July 1999, Aug 1999) with scores fluctuating from near passing to unsatisfactory, culminating in a summary suspension based on record-keeping and other violations.
Jones contested the process, alleging the inspectors fabricated an emergency to justify the summary suspension without predeprivation process.
Jones entered into a stipulated order (Feb 2000) revoking his pharmacy license for five years and waiving a full adjudicative hearing, though not waiving the right to sue.
Jones sued the State, DOH, the Board, the executive director, and inspectors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for state tort claims; the Court of Appeals held against Jones on several points, which the Washington Supreme Court ultimately reversed.
The Supreme Court addressed whether inspectors could be liable under § 1983 for due process violations and whether the exhaustion doctrine barred state tort claims, ultimately ruling in Jones's favor on both questions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wene and Jeppesen may be liable under § 1983 for due process violations	Jones contends fabricated emergency violated due process.	State argues inspectors cannot be liable absent personal fabrication findings; qualified immunity may apply.	There is a genuine issue of material fact; not entitled to qualified immunity.
Whether the alleged fabrication of an emergency by inspectors caused a due process violation	Jones asserts the emergency was fabricated to enable summary suspension.	Inspectors did not fabricate; multiple violations justified action.	Genuine issue of material fact exists as to causation and fabrication.
Whether Wene and Jeppesen are entitled to qualified immunity	Jones argues their conduct violated clearly established rights.	Officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless clearly established violation.	Not entitled to qualified immunity; arguments linked to fabrication evidence create triable issues.
Whether the exhaustion doctrine bars Jones's state tort claims due to waivers of hearings	Jones exhausted available remedies by final agency determination.	Waiver of expedited hearing and process could foreclose exhaustion.	Jones exhausted administrative remedies; the final agreement forecloses some claims but exhaustion does not bar all.
Whether the administrative proceedings foreclose state tort claims due to causation and stipulations	Stipulations do not bar all factual disputes about causation.	Stipulations bind liability and show the suspension was justified; no genuine causation issue.	Summary judgment on tort claims proper; no genuine causation issue due to stipulations.

Key Cases Cited

Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991) (establishes two-pronged qualified immunity inquiry)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (news on necessity of showing personal violation for § 1983 suit against officials)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (establishes objective reasonableness standard for qualified immunity)
Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808 (2009) (permits addressing qualified immunity at summary-judgment stage)
Catanzaro v. Weiden, 188 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 1999) (emergency assessment deference but cannot be arbitrary)
Armendariz v. Penman, 31 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 1994) (emergency fabricated when no emergency exists violates due process)
Limone v. Condon, 372 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2004) (prohibition against fabricating evidence and framing individuals)
Wahba v. H & N Prescription Ctr., Inc., 539 F. Supp. 352 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) (illustrates harm from improper dispensing and record-keeping)
Baker v. Arbor Drugs, Inc., 215 Mich. App. 198, 544 N.W.2d 727 (1996) (pharmacy errors causing harm due to improper drug interactions)
Overton v. Consolidated Ins. Co., 145 Wash.2d 417 (2002) (evidence requirements for summary-judgment declarations)