Verda Lee Crosswhite Vv Washington State Dept. of Social & Health Services
197 Wash. App. 539
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Verda Crosswhite, a long‑time personal caregiver, was investigated by the Department of Social and Health Services after an August 1, 2013 doctor‑office altercation with her client, “Jodi,” a vulnerable adult with diabetes and other disabilities.
- Department investigator found mental abuse “substantiated”; a substantiated finding can lead to placement on a state registry and professional disqualification.
- An ALJ reversed the substantiation, finding Crosswhite yelled out of concern and the Department failed to show she willfully intended to inflict injury, confinement, intimidation, or punishment.
- The Department’s reviewing officer (review judge) reversed the ALJ and reinstated the substantiation, applying a departmental regulation that defined “willful” to include conduct the actor “knew or reasonably should have known” could cause a “negative outcome.”
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the agency rule improperly broadened the statutory definition of “abuse,” whether the agency misapplied the law, and whether substantial evidence supported the final order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department’s regulatory definition of “willful” conflicts with RCW 74.34.020(2) | WAC impermissibly expands “willful” to negligence ("knew or reasonably should have known") and adds vague “negative outcome” language | Rule falls within agency expertise and implements broad remedial purpose of statute | WAC exceeds statutory authority: "willful" requires knowing infliction of statutory harm; negligence/“should have known” and “negative outcome” are invalid expansions |
| Proper legal standard for “willful” under the Abuse of Vulnerable Adults Act | "Willful" means knowingly inflicting injury, confinement, intimidation, or punishment | Agency: nonaccidental conduct that actor knew or reasonably should have known could cause harm suffices | Court adopts construction that willfulness requires subjective knowledge of inflicting a statutory harm; negligence standard not permitted |
| Whether substantial evidence supports the Department’s finding that Crosswhite knowingly inflicted harm | Crosswhite: record shows motive was concern; ALJ credibility findings support lack of knowing infliction; insufficient evidence of prolonged verbal assault | Department: evidence of public yelling and testimony (including receptionist) supports inference Crosswhite knew or should have known she caused harm | Substantial evidence lacking. Review judge improperly discounted ALJ’s witness‑observation findings and the record does not support 30–45 minute post‑office verbal assault or knowing infliction of harm |
| Whether Crosswhite is entitled to attorney fees under EAJA | Crosswhite seeks fees as prevailing party | Department contends its investigation and reliance on rule/legal authority were substantially justified | Fees denied: court finds agency action substantially justified and declines fee award |
Key Cases Cited
- Alpha Kappa Lambda Fraternity v. Washington State University, 152 Wn. App. 401 (discusses APA review standards for agency action)
- Raven v. Department of Social & Health Services, 177 Wn.2d 804 (substantial‑evidence standard in agency abuse/neglect contexts)
- Marcum v. Department of Social & Health Services, 172 Wn. App. 546 (agency cannot broaden statutory standard for neglect/abuse)
- Brown v. Department of Social & Health Services, 145 Wn. App. 177 (statutory “abuse” requires improper action causing harm)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474 (courts must consider whole administrative record; weight of evidence vs. contrary findings)
- State v. Bauer, 92 Wn.2d 162 (definition of “willful” as acting knowingly with respect to material elements)
- State v. Shipp, 93 Wn.2d 510 (limits on construing ‘‘knowledge’’ to negligence; permissible inference only)
- Tapper v. Employment Security Department, 122 Wn.2d 397 (reviewing officer may make independent factual findings but must give due regard to ALJ observations)
- Goldsmith v. Department of Social & Health Services, 169 Wn. App. 573 (discusses foreseeability and knowledge in abuse cases)