345 P.3d 850
Wash. Ct. App.2015Background
- Ho Im Bae, a vulnerable adult resident at Lakeside Adult Family Home, died of acute morphine intoxication (homicide) less than three months after admission.
- Alpha Nursing employees Christine Thomas (RN) and Marian Binondo (LPN) visited Lakeside; neither was Bae’s assigned nurse. Binondo observed Bae on the floor after a fall and saw her later in bed with eyes open and moving legs; she did not see bruising and was told Bae "falls a lot."
- A resident, Kerri Salzbrun, told Thomas Bae was being given morphine and showed alleged pills; Thomas checked meds, found no morphine order, and called DSHS hotline the same day (left voicemail). DSHS deferred review.
- After Bae’s death, Binondo learned of Thomas’s concerns and then called DSHS to report her earlier observations. Plaintiff Esther Kim (personal representative) sued for negligence/failure to report under Washington’s Vulnerable Adult Protection Act (ch. 74.34 RCW). Alpha moved for summary judgment; court granted it. Thomas also challenged service abroad (Norway).
- The appellate court affirmed: service on Thomas in Norway was proper; neither nurse had a duty to report to law enforcement under the facts, so summary judgment for defendants was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Kim's Argument | Alpha/Thomas' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of service on Thomas in Norway | Service was improper and untimely | Service complied with Hague Convention, Norwegian law, and CR 4(i)(1) | Service was proper and timely; appeal rejected |
| Whether Binondo had duty to report abuse immediately | Binondo saw Bae fallen and should have reported neglect/abuse | Binondo observed no injury, reasonably relied on caregiver/owner to assess and report | No duty to report at that time; summary judgment proper |
| Whether Thomas had duty to report to law enforcement (in addition to DSHS) | Thomas knew of morphine suspicion and should have notified police | Thomas received an unreliable, second-hand report and promptly reported to DSHS; no direct observation of assault | No duty to report to law enforcement under these facts; reporting to DSHS satisfied mandate |
| Application of voluntary rescue doctrine | Nurses’ inaction induced Salzbrun to rely on them, creating duty | No promise to act was made; Salzbrun only "thought" they would help—insufficient for doctrine | Rescue doctrine not triggered; no factual basis to create duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Powers v. W.B. Mobile Servs., Inc., 182 Wn.2d 159 (2014) (service on one codefendant tolls statute as to others)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 112 Wn.2d 216 (1989) (summary judgment standards in Washington)
- Schooley v. Pinch's Deli Mkt., Inc., 134 Wn.2d 468 (1998) (elements of negligence)
- Moore v. Hagge, 158 Wn. App. 137 (2010) (negligence/causation sometimes appropriate for summary judgment)
- Shizuko Mita v. Guardsmark, LLC, 182 Wn. App. 76 (2014) (voluntary rescue doctrine elements)