HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSHS lawsuit JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil DPA
DATE: June 21,2024
SUBJECT: Settlement of the Counties Litigation against DSHS
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The Washington State Association of Counties(WSAC)and most Washington counties, including
Jefferson County, filed an action against the Washington State Department of Social and Health
Services (DSHS) force it to perform its statutory duties related to persons evaluated for mental
competency in criminal cases. The duties of DSHS related to: (1) the receipt and evaluation of
patients by the State referred there by court order under RCW 10.77.086(7); and, (2) advance
notice by the State of release of committed persons under RCW 71.05.425.
After a very unsuccessful detour to federal court for the State, the Pierce County Superior Court
issued a preliminary injunction against DSHS requiring it to perform the statutory duties. The
DSHS appealed, but saw the handwriting on the wall. Accordingly, DSHS has been complying
with its statutory requirements. There is no particularly graceful way for the case to end for good
because prosecuting attorneys and superior court judges have discretion independent of county
legislative bodies and cannot be required by DSHS to be bound to processes that DSHS would like
them to and the parties must work together because part of what the preliminary injunction requires
is cooperation.
Nevertheless, WSAC and the counties have achieved their litigation objective. But they also face
a small risk of reversal on appeal. So, their lawyers have agreed on an MOU that memorializes
practical agreements between DSHS about working together in a way that benefits all sides. The
appeal has been essential stayed pending the finalization of negotiations.
The AG's office proposed an MOU and counsel for WSAC and the counties proposed changes,
which the DSHS has finally accepted. The MOU calls for coordination between the State and the
Counties to facilitate the operation of, and compliance with, state law, federal law, and federal
court orders.
Once the MOU is signed, DSHS will dismiss the appeal and the entire case will be dismissed
without prejudice. This means that if DSHS starts up with the same type of conduct as before the
preliminary injunction was entered, we can sue it again and seek the same relief.
1
ANALYSIS:
An MOU, along with a dismissal without prejudice, will settle the case settlement with DSHS.
The PAO recommends entering into the settlement. Assuming the County accepts the PAO's
recommendation, someone must be designated by the County to sign the MOU on behalf of the
County.
FISCAL IMPACT:
WASC has been funding the litigation and doing almost all the work. The settlement of this case
will have a minimal positive effect on PAO resources. There will not be a budget impact,but there
will be a slight increase the capacity of the Chief Civil DPA. In contrast not joining the MOU will
force the county to proceed on its own.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board authorize the County Administrator or the Chief Civil DPA to sign the MOU on
behalf of the County.
REVIEWED BY:
Mark McCau y County Administra ate
2