Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,769 chars

client had denied Ms. Daniels’s request for accommodation. The hearing took place over

the course of two days and involved testimony from three K&H employees, a pest control

technician, and Ms. Daniels.

The K&H employees authenticated photographs of Ms. Daniels’s apartment;

corroborated allegations that had been set forth in the notices; and explained the condition

of Ms. Daniels’s unit posed a risk to the landlord in the form of potential for infestation,

damage to surfaces, inadequate airflow, and egress from the unit. K&H’s maintenance

technician opined that the condition of Ms. Daniels’s apartment posed a risk of mold

growth, but admitted he had not actually observed mold in the unit. The employees also

testified Ms. Daniels had told them about having “back issues” that made it difficult for

her to move items in her apartment. Rep. of Proc. (RP) (Feb. 14, 2022) at 66; see also id.

at 86-87, 94; RP (Feb. 15, 2022) at 121.

The pest control technician testified he visited Ms. Daniels’s apartment during

August 2021. At that time, the overwhelming accumulation of personal items in

7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38918-9-III
Kiemle & Hagood Co. v. Daniels

Ms. Daniels’s unit made it “next to impossible to do an adequate pest inspection.”

RP (Feb. 14, 2022) at 47. He did not opine that there was a current infestation, but

testified he found rodent droppings and, due to how messy the apartment was, he was

unable to find access points where rodents could enter. “I[t] wasn’t a safe environment to

move around in.” Id.

Ms. Daniels testified on her own behalf and explained how her impairments

diminished her strength and caused her to tire easily, impeding her ability to clean