Karanjah v. Department of Social & Health Services
199 Wash. App. 903
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Karanjah, a state-licensed nursing assistant at an assisted‑living facility, intervened when Ivan, a resident with Alzheimer’s/vascular dementia, entered other residents’ rooms and had fecal matter on his hands and was assaultive toward a trainee.
- Staff observed Karanjah restrain Ivan’s hands behind his back and push or shove him down a hallway into his room; Ivan struck his left wrist on the doorjamb and exhibited redness/swelling.
- DSHS issued a preliminary finding of physical abuse; an ALJ and the Board of Appeals (BOA) affirmed the abuse finding. Karanjah challenged the agency decision.
- The superior court reversed the BOA, holding the BOA misapplied Brown v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., found insufficient substantial evidence of abuse, and awarded Karanjah attorney fees under the EAJA.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that (1) substantial evidence supported the factual findings that Ivan was injured and that Karanjah restrained/returned him to his room, but (2) the BOA misinterpreted Brown by treating protective conduct as requiring a self‑defense/necessity showing and thus erred as a matter of law; the BOA’s order was arbitrary and capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports BOA findings that Karanjah shoved/returned Ivan and that Ivan was injured | Karanjah: findings not supported; injury and causation unclear | DSHS: witness testimony and reports support findings | Held: substantial evidence supports the challenged factual findings (shoving, injury, leaving Ivan with stool on hands) |
| Whether Karanjah’s conduct constituted "abuse" under AVA (willful action inflicting injury) | Karanjah: her actions were protective, not willful/intentional to injure; Brown protects similar protective actions | DSHS: actions were improper and not justified; BOA required immediacy/self‑defense showing | Held: BOA misapplied Brown by conflating protective action with a self‑defense requirement; conduct was protective and not abusive |
| Whether BOA’s decision was arbitrary and capricious | Karanjah: BOA disregarded relevant circumstances (Ivan’s history, duty to prevent fecal spread) | DSHS: BOA decision based on record and credible evidence | Held: BOA decision was arbitrary and capricious for failing to consider surrounding circumstances and for narrowing Brown’s analysis |
| Whether attorney fees under EAJA were proper | Karanjah: she prevailed and DSHS’s action was not substantially justified | DSHS: its position was reasonable | Held: superior court did not abuse discretion; DSHS not substantially justified; fees affirmed and awarded on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 145 Wn. App. 177 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (protective staff intervention that is not willful injury is not abuse under AVA)
- Crosswhite v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 197 Wn. App. 539 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017) (defining willful/nonaccidental requirements and cautioning on identifying the "knowing action")
- Raven v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 177 Wn.2d 804 (Wash. 2013) (EAJA substantial‑justification standard explained)
- Silverstreak, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 159 Wn.2d 868 (Wash. 2007) (clarifies that substantial justification focuses on legal and factual basis of agency action)