Facts:  Following a workplace injury, petitioner Hajrudin Kustura filed a claim for workers’ compensation with the respondent Department of Labor and Industries.  Kustura, due to his limited English proficiency, was provided interpreter services at the Department of Labor and Industries’ expense at the subsequent hearing before the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals but was not provided interpreter services at the Department of Labor and Industries’ expense for his communications with his attorney or for the translation of witness testimony.  Following an adverse decision, Kustura appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, asserting that he was entitled to interpreter services during all phases of the proceedings insofar as Washington Revised Code §2.43.040 requires that individuals with limited English proficiency be provided with interpreter services at state expense during legal proceedings.  The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, holding that as the right to interpreter services conferred by §2.43.040 is limited to parties with limited English proficiency against whom legal proceedings are initiated by the state, Kustura was not entitled to interpreter services at state expense as he had initiated the proceedings by filing a workers’ compensation claim.  Kustura appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s):  Was Kustura the party initiating legal proceedings for purposes of §2.43.040 and therefore not entitled to interpreter services?

Conclusion:  Justice James M. Johnson’s opinion for the Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that Kustura was the party initiating legal proceedings for purposes of §2.43.040 and therefore not entitled to interpreter services at state expense given that proceedings could not have begun absent Kustura filing a workers’ compensation claim.  However, the Court also held that as the Board of Industrial Appeals had elected to appoint an interpreter to assist Kustura, it was required by Washington Administrative Code §263-12-097 to pay the associated costs and to permit the interpreter to assist Kustura whenever necessary throughout the entire hearing.  Nonetheless, the Court found that this right is limited to the hearing itself and that the state was not required to provide an interpreter to assist Kustura with his communications with his attorney outside of the hearing.

Docket No. 81478-3; 81480-5; 81481-3; 81758-8; 81759-6

Petitioner: Hajrudin Kustura

(Counsel: Ann Pearl Owen)

Respondent: Department of Labor and Industries

(Counsel: Spencer Walter Daniels, Johna Skyles Craig, Jay Douglas Geck, Masako Kanazawa, and John R. Wasberg )

Other Parties: Meštrovac (petitioner) v. Dep’t of Labor & Industries (respondent); Ferenćak (petitioner) v. Dep’t of Labor & Industries (respondent); Resulović (petitioner) v. Dep’t of Labor & Industries (respondent); Mašić (petitioner) v. Dep’t of Labor & Industries (respondent)

Briefs:

Argument: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, June 17th, 2010

Prevailing Party: Department of Labor and Industries (Respondent)

Vote: 7-2

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-2011)

Alexander

Johnson

Madsen

Sanders

Chambers
(Dissent)

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson
(Majority)

Brintnall
(Pro Tem)