Kim v. Lakeside Adult Family Home, 185 Wn. 2d 532

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that Washington’s Abuse of Vulnerable Adults Act creates an implied private cause of action against mandated reporters who negligently fail to report suspected abuse. The court further held that genuine issues of material fact regarding the nurses’ reporting duties and conduct precluded summary judgment. Regarding service of process on a defendant in Norway, the court concluded that personal service by an independent process server did not comply with the Hague Convention but affirmed denial of dismissal because the plaintiff acted with reasonable diligence through Norway’s designated central authority.

Holdings

1. RCW 74.34.035 creates an implied private cause of action against mandated reporters who fail to report suspected abuse or neglect of vulnerable adults.
2. Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Binondo had reasonable cause to believe abuse was occurring, whether Thomas had reason to suspect physical assault, and whether the reports were made immediately.
3. Personal service by an independent process server did not comply with the Hague Convention because Norway objected to alternative methods of service and service in Norway had to be effectuated through Norway's designated central authority.
4. Timely and proper service on Alpha tolled the statute of limitations as to Thomas, and Kim acted with reasonable diligence in attempting service through Norway's central authority.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Washington's Abuse of Vulnerable Adults Act creates an implied private cause of action against mandated reporters who negligently fail to report suspected abuse or neglect.
2. Whether genuine issues of material fact concerning the nurses' knowledge, reasonable cause or suspicion, and promptness of reporting precluded summary judgment.
3. Whether personal service on Thomas in Norway by an independent process server complied with the Hague Convention.
4. Whether timely service on Alpha tolled the statute of limitations as to Thomas and whether Kim acted diligently in serving Thomas.
5. Whether either party was entitled to attorney fees at that stage of the litigation.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded