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
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850661.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Full Text
1,730 charsState v. Bourgeois, 133 Wn.2d 389, 403, 945 P.2d 1120 (1997)). Further, “an implicitly give tribunals power to award such damages. Id. at 120-21. But the court clarified that the employee “who suffer[s] damages by humiliation and mental suffering caused by age discrimination[] is not without remedy” because a companion statute, RCW 49.60.030, “specifically grants a civil remedy for anyone injured by an act of discrimination” by allowing them to “recover the actual damages sustained.” Id. at 124 (emphasis added). Similarly here, SMC 4.20.870(B) allows Sgt. Hockett to recover his “actual damages,” which is inclusive of all non-economic damages including but not limited to $20,000 in emotional distress damages. 20 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 85066-1-I appellate court may affirm a trial court’s ruling on any grounds the record supports.” Hendrickson v. King County, 101 Wn. App. 258, 266, 2 P.3d 1006 (2000). A SPD claims the trial court erred by preventing it from cross-examining Sgt. Hockett on his prior statements attributing his chronic fatigue to his military service and redacting similar statements from his medical records. Specifically, SPD sought to impeach Sgt. Hockett using three pieces of evidence: (a) Sgt. Hockett’s deposition testimony that he started experiencing chronic fatigue following his military service and, when asked if he was exposed to toxins during deployment, that he “sucked a lot of the burning oil wells . . . , but beyond that, it’s still a mystery;” (b) a note from a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) doctor in 2014 stating that Sgt. Hockett claimed his chronic fatigue is due to “exposure to environmental