Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,723 chars
alleging claims for (1) negligence and (2) failure to accommodate in violation of

6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85066-1-I

WLAD. In February 2021, Sgt. Hockett filed a whistleblower complaint with the

Director under SMC 4.20.860(A). In April 2021, the Director dismissed the

complaint as insufficient and untimely under SMC 4.20.860(A) and (B)(2). On June

1, 2021, Sgt. Hockett filed an amended complaint in his King County action adding

a third claim for retaliation in violation of the SMC. The next week, Sgt. Hockett

resubmitted to the Director his whistleblower complaint together with a copy of his

amended superior court complaint. In July 2021, the Director found the

resubmitted complaint sufficient and decided not to investigate the complaint

further because Sgt. Hockett was pursuing his claims in the King County Superior

Court action.

Before trial, the court granted two relevant sets of motions in limine. First,

Sgt. Hockett sought to exclude any evidence that his exposure to toxic substances

during his military service in the first Gulf War in the early 1990s caused the

symptoms he attributes to exposure to car exhaust at the West Garage on several

grounds, including hearsay and relevance. The trial court granted the motion and

ruled that “[o]pinion testimony about the diagnosis of ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ [(GWS)]

and the phrase ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ is excluded” and “[m]edical records must

exclude and redact any diagnosis of any doctor.” Second, Sgt. Hockett sought to

exclude on hearsay grounds the results of the 2017 L&I report concluding that SPD

had not violated occupational CO exposure standards and declining to issue a