Facts: Petitioner James Hardman and his wife Alice serve as court-appointed guardians for Sandra Lamb and several other disabled individuals. For their services, the Hardmans receive guardianship fees pursuant to Washington Revised Code §11.92.180. In their 2008 guardian report, the Hardmans also requested compensation for their advocacy efforts, which include community outreach and lobbying at the local, state, and federal levels, on behalf of the disabled. The commissioner for the Superior Court for King County approved the guardian report and requested additional information detailing the time spent on advocacy and the benefit conferred upon their wards by that advocacy. The respondent Department of Social and Health Services moved to revise the commissioner’s decision and the superior court granted the motion, ruling that lobbying, but not community outreach, is outside of the scope of the guardianship and not compensable. Both parties appealed and the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that neither lobbying nor community outreach are compensable insofar as the Hardmans failed to show that their advocacy efforts directly benefited their wards. Hardman appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Question(s): Are the Hardmans entitled to compensation for their advocacy efforts on behalf of the disabled?
Conclusion: Justice Wiggins’ opinion for a unanimous Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that the Hardman’s advocacy efforts are neither individualized to serve their wards’ particular interests nor necessary to perform their guardianship duties and therefore not compensable under §11.92.180.
Docket No. 84379-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 62711-2)
Petitioner: James Hardman
(Counsel: Michael L. Johnson)
Respondent: Department of Social and Health Services
(Counsel: Jonathon Bashford and William Bruce Work)
Briefs:
- ACLU Amicus
- Amicus of Wheeler
- Answer
- Answer in Mcnamara
- Appellants' Brief in Mcnamara
- Comments Regarding Access to Justice in Mcnamara
- DSHS Reply
- DSHS Response Brief and Opening Brief on Cross Appeal
- DSHS Response to ACLU Amicus
- DSHS Response to ACLU Supplemental Brief
- DSHS Response to Wheeler Amicus
- Department's Position Regarding Indigency in Mcnamara
- Department's Supplemental Brief
- Drw Amicus
- Drw Answer to ACLU Motion and Brief
- Drw Et Al Amici
- Guardians' Opening Brief
- Guardians' Reply to DSHS Response
- Guardians' Response to Drw's Motion to Appear as Amicus in Support of DSHS
- Guardians' Response to Supplemental Brief of Amici
- Njp Amicus in Mcnamara
- Petition for Review
- Petitioners' Supplemental Brief
- Reply in Mcnamara
- Reply to Answer
- Reply to DSHS Response and Response to Opening Brief
- Response Brief in Mcnamara
- Statement of Grounds in Mcnamara
- Supplemental ACLU Amicus
Argument: Thursday, June 30, 2011 1:30pm
[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]
Audio: Court of Appeals Division I
Audio: Washington Supreme Court
Decided: Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011
Prevailing Party: Department of Social and Health Services (Respondent)
Vote: 9-0
Citation: Pending
Court: Madsen2 Court (2011-)
Madsen
Johnson
Alexander
Chambers
Owens
Fairhurst
Johnson
Stephens
Wiggins
(Majority)
Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form. Each opinion should appear next to the Justice who authored it.