Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850661.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Full Text
1,723 charsalleging claims for (1) negligence and (2) failure to accommodate in violation of 6 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 85066-1-I WLAD. In February 2021, Sgt. Hockett filed a whistleblower complaint with the Director under SMC 4.20.860(A). In April 2021, the Director dismissed the complaint as insufficient and untimely under SMC 4.20.860(A) and (B)(2). On June 1, 2021, Sgt. Hockett filed an amended complaint in his King County action adding a third claim for retaliation in violation of the SMC. The next week, Sgt. Hockett resubmitted to the Director his whistleblower complaint together with a copy of his amended superior court complaint. In July 2021, the Director found the resubmitted complaint sufficient and decided not to investigate the complaint further because Sgt. Hockett was pursuing his claims in the King County Superior Court action. Before trial, the court granted two relevant sets of motions in limine. First, Sgt. Hockett sought to exclude any evidence that his exposure to toxic substances during his military service in the first Gulf War in the early 1990s caused the symptoms he attributes to exposure to car exhaust at the West Garage on several grounds, including hearsay and relevance. The trial court granted the motion and ruled that “[o]pinion testimony about the diagnosis of ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ [(GWS)] and the phrase ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ is excluded” and “[m]edical records must exclude and redact any diagnosis of any doctor.” Second, Sgt. Hockett sought to exclude on hearsay grounds the results of the 2017 L&I report concluding that SPD had not violated occupational CO exposure standards and declining to issue a