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

1,741 chars
9 SPD’s related arguments likewise fail. SPD contends the trial court erred in declining to read a
juror question asking, “Dr. Parker mentioned that some of the [e]xposure in Iraq could be related to
the condition; is that correct?” This argument is waived under RAP 2.5(a) because SPD did not
object to the trial court’s refusal to ask this juror question. Lastly, we reject SPD’s argument based
on the cumulative error doctrine because none of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings were
erroneous.
10 Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 933 P.2d 1036 (1997).
11 SPD does not dispute on appeal that it committed a discovery violation or that the exclusion of

Dr. Burton’s testimony was objectively justified under Burnet.

27
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85066-1-I

case by name.” Jones v. City of Seattle, 179 Wn.2d 322, 344, 314 P.3d 380

(2013)). A trial court exercises broad discretion in imposing discovery sanctions,

and we review these sanctions for abuse of discretion. Magaña, 167 Wn.2d at

582. “An appellate court can disturb a trial court’s sanction only if it is clearly

unsupported by the record.” Id.

Here, the record shows the trial court considered all three Burnet factors.

First, SPD does not dispute that the trial court correctly found SPD’s discovery

violation to be “willful,” meaning that it was “without reasonable excuse or

justification.” Id. at 584. SPD initially disclosed that Dr. Burton would opine that

Sgt. Hockett’s symptoms were caused by sleep apnea. When Sgt. Hockett later

informed SPD in March 2022 that Dr. Parker would testify that he diagnosed Sgt.

Hockett with RAD, SPD did not supplement its prior disclosure to notify Sgt.