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

1,720 chars
hazards during [the] Gulf War,” which included “smoke from oil wells, depleted

uranium . . ., diesel fumes from vehicles[,] . . . [and] secondary smoking[,] and

insecticides;” and (c) a note from Sgt. Hockett’s treating physician in 2013 stating

that Sgt. Hockett has had chronic fatigue for 20 years and knows of “multiple

chemical exposures.”

The trial court here correctly concluded these statements were irrelevant.

To be admissible, evidence must be relevant, meaning it has “any tendency to

make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the

action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” ER

401, 402. Notably, SPD does not assign error to the trial court’s pretrial ruling that

“[o]pinion testimony about the diagnosis of [GWS] and the phrase ‘Gulf War

Syndrome’ is excluded.” This concession is well taken because no medical

21
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85066-1-I

provider or expert has diagnosed Sgt. Hockett with GWS. Indeed, SPD’s own

expert, Dr. Burton, conceded that GWS “does not constitute a definable medical

condition.” By framing this issue as a battle over “alternate causes,” SPD is

attempting to circumvent the trial court’s order excluding evidence relating to GWS.

The trial court acknowledged as much when it told defense counsel, “[W]ith your

saying that somebody was in the first Gulf War, they’re going by ‘burning oil,’

everybody knows, frankly, common knowledge that this is Gulf War syndrome. It’s

been in the paper for years.” Because all evidence regarding GWS was properly

excluded, Sgt. Hockett’s prior statements could not, and did not, make the