Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,777 chars

admissions, and depositions establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact and

that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Jones v. Allstate Ins.

Co., 146 Wn.2d 291,300-01,45 P.3d 1068 (2002); CR 56(c). We review all facts and

reasonable inferences from the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.

at 300.

Given our decision in the prior appeal, our review proceeds from the premise that

Dr. Sambasivan can demonstrate that the board's adoption and application of the

proficiency standard was motivated by racial animus.

I No. 31858-3-111
Sambas ivan v. Kadlec Med. Ctr.

1. Law ofthe case

Before arguing that he asserts viable retaliation claims, Dr. Sambasivan raises the

"law of the case" doctrine as a threshold issue, arguing that the trial court should never

have entertained a second summary judgment motion in light of this court's 2012 directive

that it was "remand[ing] that claim for trial." 2012 WL 5208657, at >I< 12. "'Where there

has been a determination of the applicable law in a prior appeal, the law of the case

doctrine ordinarily precludes redeciding the same legal issues in subsequent appeaL'"

State v. Worl, 129 Wn.2d 416, 425,918 P.2d 905 (1996) (quoting Folsom v. County of

Spokane, III Wn.2d 256, 263, 759 P.2d 1196 (1988)). We may also refuse under the

doctrine to address issues that could have been raised in a prior appeal. State v. Elmore,

154 Wn. App. 885, 896,228 P.3d 760 (2010) (citing Folsom, III Wn.2d at 263-64).

Kadlec could have asked us to affirm partial summary judgment on the issue of whether

medical staff bylaws create a contractual relationship between the hospital and members