Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 309941.cor.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,722 chars

through a trial. "[A] grant of summary judgment constitutes a final judgment on the

merits and has the same preclusive effect as a full trial of the issue." Nat 'I Union Fire

Ins. Co. ofPittsburgh v. Nw Youth Servs., 97 Wn. App. 226,233,983 P.2d 1144 (1999).

In National Union, the court of appeals ruled on a summary judgment ruling, in a suit

brought by a patient against her therapist and his employer, that the therapist was acting

outside the scope of his employment when he engaged in an improper sexual relationship

with the patient. The court held that the patient was collaterally estopped from

relitigating that issue in a later action by the employer's liability insurer for a declaration

of noncoverage.

No.30994-1-III
Brownfield v. City ofYakima

United States District Court Judge Robert Whaley only addressed Jeff

Brownfield's federal claims. Nevertheless, collateral estoppel applies even though the

ultimate issues are different in the two suits. Island County v. Mackie, 36 Wn. App. 385,

391-92, 675 P .2d 607 (1984). State courts also apply collateral estoppel to rulings

rendered in federal courts. Gannon v. Am. Home Prod., Inc., 211 N.J. 454, 48 A.3d 1094,

1100 (2012) (prior federal judgment precluded relitigation of issue of causation in state

court products liability action against manufacturer of oral polio vaccine, alleging that

vaccine caused cancer in plaintiff); Lumpkin v. Jordan, 49 Cal. App. 4th 1223, 1231-32,

57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 303 (1996) (despite substantive differences between federal and state

antidiscrimination laws, collateral estoppel applies to federal court's determination that