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
1,741 chars9 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.