Court OKs $57M verdict for WA home-care workers

Headline Legal News

Washington's Supreme Court on Thursday narrowly upheld a $57 million verdict against the state in a case brought by workers who care for severely disabled people. But the justices declined to give the workers pre-judgment interest — throwing out an additional $39 million awarded by a lower-court judge.

The 22,000 workers claimed they were shortchanged by a 2003 rule from the Department of Social and Health Services that automatically cut their pay by 15 percent. The rule was based on the rationale that because the caregivers lived with their charges, then some of the work performed — cooking, for example — also benefited the caregiver, who shouldn't be paid for it.

The high court struck down the rule in 2007 as inconsistent with federal Medicaid requirements, and the workers sued to get the money they said they were owed. After tortuous litigation that included a detour into federal court, a Thurston County Superior Court jury sided with the workers in 2011 and awarded $57 million. The state appealed, but the high court sided with the workers 5-4 Thursday.

Related listings

  • Supreme Court Refuses To Overturn Arizona Marijuana Ruling

    Supreme Court Refuses To Overturn Arizona Marijuana Ruling

    Headline Legal News 04/03/2014

    The Supreme Court has refused to overturn Arizona court rulings ordering the Yuma County sheriff to return marijuana that was seized from a woman with a California medical marijuana authorization honored by Arizona. The justices' order was issued wit...

  • Another Apple-Samsung skirmish heads to court

    Another Apple-Samsung skirmish heads to court

    Headline Legal News 03/31/2014

    The fiercest rivalry in the world of smartphones is heading back to court this week in the heart of the Silicon Valley, with Apple and Samsung accusing each other, once again, of ripping off designs and features. The trial will mark the latest round ...

  • Egypt court sentences 528 Morsi supporters to death

    Egypt court sentences 528 Morsi supporters to death

    Headline Legal News 03/24/2014

    A court in southern Egyptian has convicted 529 supporters of ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi, sentencing them to death on charges of murdering a policeman and attacking police. The court in Minya issued its ruling on Monday after only two se...

Victorville CA DUI Lawyers - Drunk Driving Defense Attorney

The outcome of a DUI defense will have a long-term effect on anyone’s life, making the decision to receive legal representation an easy one. The fact is, most people accused of a DUI are first offenders with no criminal background. Whether this is your first run in with the law or you have had previous convictions, you are in need of a DUI defense attorney.

If you fail a sobriety test or have a blood alcohol level above 0.8%, you are considered to be driving under the influence in which you will be arrested. During this time you will be read your Miranda rights and it is crucial to exercise your right to remain silent. As they say, “anything you say can and will be held against you in court.” The courtroom takes no mercy on drunk drivers and any statement you make during your arrest will only damage your case.

The charges you are facing for a DUI range from fines, a 12-month suspension on your license and worst-case scenario, prison time. Your attorney will be able to analyze your situation to decide the best way to go about your case.

Our Victorville CA DUI defense attorneys know the tricky ways to challenge all of the DUI tests and know how to claim improper collection of evidence. We will be able to negotiate on your behalf and free you from charges and help you keep your drivers license. The DUI process can last up to several months, we can make this process easier on you.

Business News

Indianapolis Personal Injury Law Firm Williams & Piatt are devoted to fighting for the injured. We represent people who have been injured
Criminal Defense Lawyers in Surry County. If you are charged with a criminal offense, please consult with an attorney. >> read