Hi Folks,
This is my first post on Steemit... I think.
I'm into legal issues and human origins and some politics so that's what I will use this platform to post about. I will look up legal cases, typically in my home state, and brief them or summarize them. This is a great way to look into case law as opposed to reading through a twenty plus page judicial opinion. I use the legal analysis technique IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion). Alright, lets do this!
Case name: Beggs v. DHS, 171 Wn.2d 69, (Wash. 2011).
Procedure: Rockwood Clinic and the doctors filed in Superior Court, seeking dismissal of the wrongful death and survival actions and dismissal of the action for failure to report suspected child abuse. The Superior Court granted the motions. Division Three of the Court of Appeals granted discretionary review of both partial summary judgment orders and certified the case to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Facts: Tyler DeLeon and six other children were placed in the foster care of Carole DeLeon. After multiple incidents of physically abuse and doctor visits and without any intervention from professionals, Tyler died on his seventh birthday from severe dehydration. Carole would later be sentenced to six years, but only serve three. Beggs, personal representative of Tyler’s estate and guardian ad litem for the five surviving siblings, filed for wrongful death and survival actions.
Issue: Does RCW 26.44.030 imply a cause of action against health care providers, independent of chapter 7.70 RCW? Were Tyler's adoptive siblings dependent on Tyler for support under the wrongful death and survival action statutes based on the DSHS adoption support payments Carole DeLeon received for Tyler?
Decision: Tyler's siblings are not qualified beneficiaries and affirm the superior court's partial summary judgment order. Affirm the failure-to-report claim and remanded to Superior court to address the other claims.
Rule of Law: RCW 26.44.030, 26.44.10, and 7.70, Estate of Sly v. Linville, 75 Wash. App. 431, 439 (1994). Bortle v. Northern Pacific Railway, 60 Wash. 552, 54 (1910).
Reasoning: Sanders, J.—“Under the statutory scheme, we reject Beggs' claim that Tyler's siblings were financially dependent, by virtue of the DSHS adoption support payments made on his behalf. DSHS provided separate payments to Carole DeLeon to supplement her support of the other children in her home. Tyler's siblings were not substantially dependent on his adoption support payments.”
Dissent: Alexander, J.
Concurring: Madsen, C.J., and C. Johnson, Chambers, Owens, Fairhurst, J.M. Johnson, and Stephens, JJ.,
