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
1,725 chars“shall be deemed admissible unless objection is made under [ER 904(c)],” the plain language of ER 904(c)(2) allows the receiving party to wait until trial to raise a relevancy objection. See Hendrickson, 101 Wn. App. at 268 (noting that “ER 904 reserves relevance objections for trial”). Therefore, Sgt. Hockett did not need to object to SPD’s ER 904 notice within 14 days for the trial court to exclude the evidence on relevancy grounds. B SPD argues the trial court erred by sustaining an objection for lack of foundation when SPD attempted to question Sgt. Hockett’s treating physician, Dr. Parker, about whether Sgt. Hockett’s service-related exposures could have caused his RAD. Because SPD did not show that Dr. Parker had sufficient personal knowledge to testify about Sgt. Hockett’s military-related exposures, we do not find an abuse of discretion. 8 SPD argues that Sgt. Hockett opened the door to being questioned about his service-related exposures based on his and others’ testimony that he served in the military and did not experience chronic fatigue until he began working at SPD. This argument is unconvincing because even if a party opens the door, the evidence sought to be admitted must still be admissible under ER 402 and ER 403. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 187 Wn.2d 743, 766, 389 P.3d 517 (2017). Assuming Sgt. Hockett did open the door, this evidence would still be irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or misleading. 24 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 85066-1-I We typically construe objections for lack of foundation as objections under ER 602, which provides that “[a] witness may not testify to a matter unless