Attorney Isaac Ruiz's Legal Cases

Constitutional

Sund v. Regence BlueShield, No. 13-2-03122-1 SEA (King County Superior Court)

Feb 26, 2014

OUTCOME: Settlement requires State of Washington to pay the cost of our clients' SCS and implement certain measures to bring the HTCC into compliance with the Washington Constitution.

Few people have ever heard of Washington's Health Technology Clinical Committee, or HTCC. Here's a quick overview: It's a committee of unelected individuals given the power to evaluate health technolog ... ies and determine whether participating Washington state agencies may lawfully cover them. HTCC decisions carry the force of law. The decisions affect the health care of hundreds of thousands, if not more than a million, Washingtonians. Despite having this breathtaking power over matters of health—matters of life and death—the law establishing the HTCC rendered the committee totally unaccountable. Avenues for reviewing HTCC decisions were explicitly foreclosed. When the HTCC disfavored a technology, regardless of whether its decision was right or wrong, it meant that courts and participating agencies were prohibited from considering whether the technology was “medically necessary, or proper and necessary treatment” in the case of the individual patient. RCW 70.14.120(3). The dangers of the HTCC’s unchecked power were thrown into sharp relief in the case of our clients, a former state judge and his wife. Both had insurance through the state-funded Uniform Medical Plan, which is a health plan for state employees. The plan denied a request for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) based on an HTCC edict prohibiting coverage for SCS in cases of chronic neuropathic pain—even though doctors believed SCS was medically necessary to treat the judge’s crippling pain. Represented by the State Attorney General, the UMP argued that the HTCC law stripped courts of the power of judicial review over HTCC decisions. The idea that a government decision can prohibit someone from receiving a life-saving treatment without any way to appeal the decision should send shivers up the spines of people who care about good government and accountability. Last October, our legal team at Keller Rohrback obtained a ruling from King County Superior Court Judge Beth Andrus that RCW 70.14.120(3) of the HTCC law was an unconstitutional delegation of lawmaking power because there were insufficient procedural safeguards to control arbitrary or abusive agency action. That ruling precipitated a settlement. Under the settlement, the State of Washington waived its right to appeal the King County Superior Court's decision that the law is unconstitutional. The State must pay the cost of our clients' SCS and implement certain measures to bring the HTCC into compliance with the Washington Constitution. I'm extremely proud of the work that we did on this important case. And I'm honored that our clients trusted us to bring this fight on their behalves—a fight that some thought they could never win.

Insurance

MWW, PLLC v. Kiribati Seafood Co., LLC, No. 69109-1-I (Wash. Ct. App.)

Jan 13, 2014

OUTCOME: Equitable determination of reasonableness affirmed. The amount of the covenant judgment is the presumptive measure of damages in a subsequent action against the insurer.

An attorney filed a lawsuit to collect unpaid attorney fees from his client. The client then filed a reactionary counterclaim alleging professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The attorney ... 's professional liability insurer defended him under a reservation of rights. After the insurer refused to consent to a settlement--and with available policy limits dwindling because of defense costs--the parties entered into a settlement that required the insurer to pay $550,000 to settle the counterclaims in exchange for the client's promise to pay the same amount to settle the claim for unpaid fees. The King County Superior Court approved the settlement in a reasonableness hearing. The insurer appealed, arguing that the settlement was the product of collusion and that the superior court had no power to conduct a reasonableness hearing. I represented the attorney on appeal.

Appeals

Bird v. Best Plumbing Group, LLC, 287 P.3d 551 (Wash. 2012)

Oct 25, 2012

OUTCOME: Equitable determination of reasonableness affirmed. The amount of the covenant judgment is the presumptive measure of damages in a subsequent action against the insurer.

Mr. Bird came home to his hillside property, located on Puget Sound. As he walked downhill toward his residence, a geyser of raw sewage erupted from the ground and engulfed him. Thus began Mr. Bird's s ... aga. The sewage continued to flow over time, despite efforts to stop it, causing the hillside to slump toward the sea. Mr. Bird sued Best Plumbing--whose employee trespassed on the property and cut an underground, pressurized sewage pipe, causing the geyser. Best Plumbing had liability insurance issued by Farmers. Despite opportunities, Farmers failed to settle the claim with Mr. Bird for the amount available under the insurance policy. Washington law lets insureds in Best Plumbing's position enter into settlements calling for a stipulated judgment with a covenant that the judgment will only be executed against the defendant's insurance assets. Such a settlement typically includes an assignment to the plaintiff of the defendant's claims against its insurance company arising from the insurance company's improper handling of the claim. The settlements are known as "covenant judgments." The amount of the covenant judgment, if found reasonable, serves as the presumptive amount damages in the subsequent, assigned action brought by the plaintiff against the insurer. Mr. Bird and Best Plumbing negotiated a covenant judgment in the amount of $3.75 million. They asked the superior court to hold an equitable hearing to determine whether the settlement amount was reasonable. Farmers intervened in the case and asked the judge to empanel a jury to determine reasonableness. The superior court denied the request for a jury. After voluminous discovery concerning the reasonableness of the settlement and four days of hearings, the court found the settlement reasonable. Farmers appealed the denial of a jury and the reasonableness determination. I was part of the three-lawyer team that represented Mr. Bird at the reasonableness hearing and on appeal. I was the principal writer of the briefs. I argued the case before the Court of Appeals of Washington, which affirmed unanimously. My colleague, William C. Smart, argued the case at the Supreme Court of Washington, which also affirmed, 6-3. The resulting Supreme Court opinion, Bird v. Best Plumbing Group, LLC, 287 P.3d 551 (Wash. 2012), is an important insurance case in our state. The Supreme Court held, among other things, that an insurer is not entitled to a jury trial to determine the reasonableness of a settlement and that the superior court didn't abuse its discretion in determining that the covenant judgment was reasonable.

Litigation

Perkins Coie LLP v. Ridgetop Associates (King County Superior Court)

Jul 06, 2009

OUTCOME: Jury verdict in favor of client; attorney fees and costs awarded by the superior court.

My client, a law firm, brought an action to recover unpaid legal fees from Ridgetop Associates. Ridgetop Associates filed counterclaims alleging violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the ... Consumer Protection Act. At trial, the jury returned a verdict awarding my client all of its damages. The superior court awarded Perkins Coie all of its attorney fees and prejudgment interest.

Appeals

Sanchez v. Holder, 316 Fed.Appx. 616 (9th Cir. 2009)

Feb 18, 2009

OUTCOME: Petition for review denied.

I had the honor of representing a 13-year-old Salvadoran boy who fled his home country after quitting the MS-13 gang. My client's courageous act marked him for death at the hands of the gang. He applie ... d for asylum. When I took the case, his application had already been denied by the immigration judge in a decision that was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. I took the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, knowing full well that the chances for success were slim. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review. An injustice occurred. My client was deported.

Appeals

Ou Kullasadu Invest v. Kask, 130 Wn. App. 1008 (2005)

Oct 24, 2005

OUTCOME: Judgment reversed by the Court of Appeals of Washington in favor of client.

Ou Kullasadu Invest sought to enforce a money judgment issued by an Estonian court against the Washington assets of Mart Kask and his marital community. The superior court found that all of Mr. Kask's ... property was owned by the marital community but that the judgment was enforceable only against non-marital, separate property. The court thus granted summary judgment dismissing Ou Kullasadu Invest's efforts to collect. Ou Kullasadu Invest appealed. I was the principal writer of the appellate briefs. The appeal was argued by my former colleague V.L. Woolston of Perkins Coie.

Isaac Ruiz's Legal Cases (6)

Sund v. Regence BlueShield, No. 13-2-03122-1 SEA (King County Superior Court)

MWW, PLLC v. Kiribati Seafood Co., LLC, No. 69109-1-I (Wash. Ct. App.)

Bird v. Best Plumbing Group, LLC, 287 P.3d 551 (Wash. 2012)

Perkins Coie LLP v. Ridgetop Associates (King County Superior Court)

Sanchez v. Holder, 316 Fed.Appx. 616 (9th Cir. 2009)

Ou Kullasadu Invest v. Kask, 130 Wn. App. 1008 (2005)