[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6214678,"mediaKeyId","3665996-302c95659a85f6e966173c672e331ebb","parentId",3665996,"title","Committee hears state tort payouts rising as child‑welfare and corrections claims surge","audioSeconds",1422,"startMs",58960,"endMs",1481410,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3665996-302c95659a85f6e966173c672e331ebb&start=58&end=1481","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3665996-302c95659a85f6e966173c672e331ebb/thumbnail_58960.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6214678/Washington/Committee-hears-state-tort-payouts-rising-as-childwelfare-and-corrections-claims-surge","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6214678-9e79b5ec8c1405ab51e42cfa7b9648e7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770785189&Signature=GTT~O4JbdudYsbc0cPSRCHiMxqxBlAZKP7KXnQdsT~Mq1xXrnBhUpyR-Co6632CzVGBMaw633JnvhcFECBW~2MIJSkU6ePVSSltA9hyvNVfKRbCtmGMs4TgB-44WSFJYJgreR4jLSL6JQuEo0DgPMtZuVf9TgDcZbzfXhpc-ilzGT2MmNVCKcqRf9JbD44l6bxUq~OIuQ~jVaVHpBUuq2bng5C1H0Xe1CCgfcfNzg9T22iQJn4P3L16J8VnBMSIrVp3JUe9ewlJikdsZKhvjds6AI~VfyOM01fnEciAYK5z2TGbu5fwt97OaDjoO3OrR4hpDqv4cht8XT0FXUdji4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Senate Law & Justice","date","2025-06-04T00:00:00Z","article","Staff and agency witnesses told the Law & Justice Committee on June 4 that Washington is seeing large increases in tort claims and payouts, primarily tied to child‑welfare and corrections cases.

“Tort payouts are increasing,” William Bridges, committee staff, said in opening the discussion on the state’s tort liability profile. He cited data from the Office of Risk Management showing the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and the Department of Corrections (DOC) as top drivers of claims.

Why it matters: rising claims affect the state budget and agency operations and may prompt additional legislative fixes. Committee witnesses and agency officials described how case law and recent litigation trends, changes to childhood abuse statutes and concentrated waves of lawsuits are increasing both the number and cost of claims.

State staff and outside counsel described the pattern. Scott Barber, chief of the Torts Division at the Attorney General’s Office, said, “the largest single driver over the last decade or so has been lawsuits and claims against DSHS and then DCYF.” He and other witnesses pointed to the interaction of statutes, discovery rules and court decisions as key drivers.

Several legal developments and litigation trends were singled out:

- Statutes and case law. Witnesses cited Washington’s broad waiver of sovereign immunity, statutory duties for mandatory reporters (RCW 26.44.030), and recent changes to childhood sexual‑abuse limitation rules. Bridges summarized the legal picture: waivers, statute‑of‑limitations changes, damages rules and case law all affect liability exposure.

- Court decisions. Attorneys referenced Tyner v. DSHS and the HBH line of cases as expanding duties tied to investigations and foster‑care placements; MR and Wolf were cited for expanding how continuing harms or newly discovered injuries can revive claims.

- Concentrated claim filings. Scott Barber and others told the committee that new theories and expanded application of HBH liability are producing waves of claims. Barber said a single law firm has submitted roughly 800 claims related to abuse in Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA) facilities; those filings and related lawsuits are a major portion of recent increases.

Agencies described operational impacts and options. Allison Kreutzinger of DCYF told the committee that, “as of May 31 … we are already at 1,300 individual claims for the department.” She emphasized that most recently filed claims involve incidents that occurred years or decades earlier and that payouts typically lag filings by 18–36 months.

Jason Howell, chief risk officer for DSHS, said adult‑abuse and employment claims now dominate DSHS payouts in some years and that the agency is frequently a co‑defendant with third‑party providers. “We’re sort of the deep‑pocketed defendant,” Howell said, describing why counties, contractors and providers often trigger state involvement in settlements and why attorney‑fee exposure can increase overall costs.

Michael Pedersen, risk management at DOC, described a separate liability profile for the department—negligent supervision claims, medical negligence, and security failures. He noted that negligent‑supervision payouts are uncommon but large when they occur and that modernizing medical records and improving staffing and treatment (including expansion of medication‑assisted treatment and an electronic health record) are among the department’s priorities to reduce risk.

Outside counsel and plaintiff‑side lawyers urged additional remedies and funding changes. Daryl Cochran, representing the Washington State Association for Justice, said courts and journalists historically relied on tort cases to uncover systemic harms and urged stronger internal risk‑management capacity at the Attorney General’s Office. Cochran argued that under‑resourced in‑house trial lawyers had pushed the state to pay larger special‑assistant fees and to accept bigger verdicts: “We should be funding the torts division trial lawyers group so that they can staff these cases properly,” he said.

Possible responses discussed by witnesses included bolstering the Attorney General’s torts division, restoring or expanding voluntary early‑resolution programs, investing in agency staffing and records (electronic health records), and targeted funding for treatment and supervision programs that could prevent future claims.

Ending: committee members asked clarifying questions but did not take votes. Witnesses left the committee with the same inventory of options: fund risk management and defense capacity, consider statutory clarifications about immunity and damages, and invest in prevention (staffing, treatment, records modernization) to reduce future liability. No formal policy actions were taken at the session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Law & Justice - 6/4/2025 10:00 AM","oneSentenceSummary","Staff and agency witnesses told the Law & Justice Committee on June 4 that Washington is seeing large increases in tort claims and payouts, primarily tied to child‑welfare and corrections cases.","taxTitle","Law & Justice, Senate, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20508,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6214670,"Innocence advocates and Attorney General office differ on testing, compensation rules; panel urges statutory fixes",1450,8575995,10026936,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3665996-302c95659a85f6e966173c672e331ebb&start=8575&end=10026","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3665996-302c95659a85f6e966173c672e331ebb/thumbnail_8575995.jpg","/articles/6214670/Washington/Innocence-advocates-and-Attorney-General-office-differ-on-testing-compensation-rules-panel-urges-statutory-fixes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6214670-0a9237995bec719a8cacc58557d09098/orig.mp4?Expires=1770785189&Signature=Jp-8Id05JCo-8vm3GvTxwvfl3trs62StE4hnfUpBvBZxnDBC7WvNE0zqopK4mp8cv7y26JjQNXg5M5zH9o96lhrHE5fgPYmnta85E~MITwnqQAfVILB45NW798NJaPNGYIsSLht9UXHwIGkKuzRXI3zCLuR6oWjhZbd08ME~-b9rzPq87S139LnsdgGaQjWfYEVlQ6nKtqrykk1MxsS-e7x-g~FSoBGsC3o39zdFRFxgaHYJZUk1sSueL0qEJDJs-GHHxYqtxmimB-9VxgldXzivxWTuHYtzmwMpYjzboeuPzJD2156QpCFHX7HK1Syv-qp~eFHi5z~hHQuhDM42hg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Advocates and the Attorney General’s Office told the Law & Justice Committee on June 4 that Washington’s wrongful‑conviction compensation law and procedures for post‑conviction DNA testing need legislative clarification to deliver consistent relief.

\"We don’t have a function in Washington state criminal law to declare somebody actually innocent,\" Laura Zaretsky, executive and policy director of the Washington Innocence Project, told the committee. She and colleagues said unclear statutory language and procedural barriers have made compensation and access to testing slower and more contentious than the drafters intended.

Why it matters: the Wrongfully Convicted Persons Act was intended to provide a pathway to compensation and services for people proved actually innocent. Advocates said only a small share of expected claimants have received compensation and that litigation over testing requests consumes court and lab resources.

How the statute has functioned and where it bottlenecks. Sean Hillman (Criminal Justice Division, Washington Attorney General’s Office) explained the claim process and provided the office’s case counts: 36 claims filed since 2013, 22 dismissed (abandoned or ineligible), 14 found to be eligible for adjudication, 11 resolved. Of the resolved claims, the Attorney General conceded eight and the average payout across conceded claims was roughly $361,000; individual payouts ranged from about $11,000 to $600,000.

Advocates want clearer presumptions on testing. Lara Zaretsky said post‑conviction DNA testing frequently requires substantial litigation to secure laboratory analysis. She proposed reversing the present practical presumption: allow testing on newly discovered evidence unless the state shows by clear and convincing evidence that testing could not establish innocence. Zaretsky said courts currently speculate about what DNA might show before testing is done and that removing that predictive step would save court, counsel and lab time in many cases.

On the limits of DNA. Zaretsky cautioned that DNA results are not self‑interpreting: “DNA testing can show who was the contributor … but it can’t tell you when DNA was deposited,” she said. She added that in many requests (about 40% in their experience) test results do not ultimately generate a further remedy because results can be inconclusive or not exculpatory.

Attorney General’s practical concerns and fixed issues. Hillman said the office is charged with following the statute as written and noted several points the office believes should be clarified: whether claimants are entitled to interest on judgments, eligibility when sentences were concurrent, and what the procedural standard should be for dismissing claims that fail statutory prerequisites. He provided the case and payout counts above and stressed the office’s obligation to use the statute’s “actual innocence” standard.

Ending: committee members asked for follow‑up drafting ideas. Witnesses and the Attorney General’s Office identified statutory clarifications (testing presumption, interest, eligibility language and a summary‑judgment/ dismissal procedure) that could reduce litigation and better deliver the act’s intended relief. No votes or policy changes were adopted at the session.","At the June 4 work session, the Washington Innocence Project and the Attorney General’s Office reviewed implementation of the Wrongfully Convicted Persons Act and identified procedural gaps that delay DNA testing and compensation for exonerees. The AG reported 36 compensation claims filed since 2013 and 11 resolved; advocates say only nine people",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6214674,"Lawmakers hear mixed views on bringing parole‑style review back into Washington sentencing",4551,3963465,8514895,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3665996-302c95659a85f6e966173c672e331ebb&start=3963&end=8514","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3665996-302c95659a85f6e966173c672e331ebb/thumbnail_3963465.jpg","/articles/6214674/Washington/Lawmakers-hear-mixed-views-on-bringing-parolestyle-review-back-into-Washington-sentencing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6214674-0047c6da033ecfaede9776041770b867/orig.mp4?Expires=1770785189&Signature=DiwFnVztJRpEEFzMwuXYKzLzVJgFgxTaX0jfjVgevY1EvirI8ewUjFezjlwCCMV3ZHASCpj2i-EYuEv6BiS~v9J4NlWhHQjSPwDcKVu8D2JWF-FSlzcKWWHh7MXeqhlwV-HheLPTYr-J0a7QqsTwK5XeaC8cdUOO1IAhOPLFwX-yDR8D7MXKMszwnNfzhla6g37XZP9zwag1ObZtwWfb~MAcWz5Ws0dgRPPQkgHcbd70XwOQqeFSo13k1JThIAy-bPNVSCMN869q8seh2PYjSfA83n2KpeDM59fZ96BZ2TOFB4IsNOGmfuvSK1aALA~MGpAEFY42l14w1KCZSKC3vg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Law & Justice Committee on June 4 heard panels weighing whether and how a parole‑style review could be reintroduced alongside Washington’s sentencing guidelines.

\"A parole system creates an opportunity to take into account rehabilitative progress, personal growth, community support,\" Judge Veronica Galvan, co‑chair of the Minority and Justice Commission and King County Superior Court juvenile chief, told the committee.

Why it matters: parole or a parole‑like mechanism would reshape when and how people serving long sentences become eligible for supervised release and could affect prison populations, state budgets, racial disproportionality and reentry services.

History and options. Carrie Ann Yetzer, coordinator of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission, and Dr. Lauren Knoth Petersen of the Public Safety Policy and Research Center reviewed the state’s move from indeterminate to determinate sentencing in the 1980s and described three ways a guidelines grid can interact with parole:

- The grid could set minimums that trigger parole eligibility (a “determinant plus” model),
- The grid could set maximums and make eligibility a function of a percent served, or
- The grid could show typical time served that parole reviewers use as a reference point.

Dr. Petersen noted that other states combine guidelines and parole in different ways and that comparative study is complex because of other structural differences among states.

Competing perspectives. Judges and defense advocates urged a data‑driven, transparent system with judicial review and safeguards for racial equity. Judge Galvan said data collection and “an avenue for meaningful access that is not controlled by a party in interest” are essential. Judge Cindy Larson, president of the Superior Court Judges Association, said the association reached consensus that a centralized review board could reduce geographic disparities in resentencing cases.

Prosecutors and some municipal leaders warned parole should be built with public safety and supervision resources front‑loaded. Benton County Prosecutor Eric Eisinger said any parole system “should primarily further the interests of the community” and stressed reentry resources and meaningful supervision for people released after long sentences. Russell Brown, executive director of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said the state has parole‑like features already and urged incremental changes (for example, expanding determinant‑plus eligibility) instead of a wholesale return to the old indeterminate model.

Defense and community voices argued for multiple relief paths and broader access. Cindy Arens Ellsbury of the Washington Defender Association said clemency and current boards provide only narrow relief and noted that ‘‘of the 13,000 people we currently house, only 2,300 are considered part of the ISRB population.” Formerly incarcerated presenters described programs and peer supports inside and outside prisons that they said make release more successful.

Criminal Sentencing Task Force recommendations. Committee staff summarized task‑force options that touched on parole: a proposal to convert the state’s persistent‑offender (three‑strikes) framework to a determinant‑plus model, review of the most‑serious‑offense list, and a proposal for a second‑chance review process for those who have served lengthy terms. None of those three items achieved full task‑force consensus, and members urged further study and evaluation.

Ending: lawmakers left the session with no immediate policy decisions; witnesses and committee staff identified research and design questions (how to set eligibility percentages, how to build safeguards to limit geographic and racial disparities, and what supervision and reentry funding would be required) that would need resolution before adopting any change.","At a June 4 Law & Justice Committee work session, a multi‑panel discussion covered the history of parole in Washington, options for integrating parole with the state’s sentencing grid and competing views from judges, prosecutors, defenders and formerly incarcerated advocates about equity, public safety and implementation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears state tort payouts rising as child‑welfare and corrections claims surge

Innocence advocates and Attorney General office differ on testing, compensation rules; panel urges statutory fixes

Lawmakers hear mixed views on bringing parole‑style review back into Washington sentencing