Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/318583.pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,370 chars

ofRCW 49.60.210(1), Kadlec's denial of privileges, which directly affects the ability of

26
             

No. 3 1858-3-III
Sam bas ivan v. Kadlec Med. Ctr.

physicians to carry on their profession within the hospital, is sufficiently equivalent, or

derivative of a labor-related activity, to be actionable under the statute.

For the foregoing reasons, Dr. Sambasivan demonstrated that both his federal and

state law claims present genuine issues of fact, requiring trial. It was error to enter

summary judgment.

IV. Attorney fees

Dr. Sambasivan requests attorney fees under RAP 18.1 and in accordance with the

governing federal and state civil rights statutes, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and RCW 49.60.030(2).

Kadlec correctly contends that Dr. Sambasivan's request is premature, since the case has

not yet been tried on the merits. Dowler v. Clover Park Sch. Dist. No. 400, 172 Wn.2d

471,485,258 P.3d 676 (2011) (award of fees under RCW 49.60.030(2) must await

outcome of trial on the merits); Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 759, 107 S. Ct. 2672, 96

L. Ed. 2d 654 (1987) (eligibility for attorney fees under § 1988 requires that plaintiff

receive at least some relief on the merits of his claim before he can be said to prevail).

Reversed and remanded for trial.

WE CONCUR:

~I=
:Ja. J-
Fearing~ )
27