in the middle of asking you questions of concern to them at the time then you're probably better off answering their questions than reserving time i would agree with that they cue your honor for nearly the last thirty years washington state has been on the vanguard of allowing survivors of sexual abuse to bring lawsuits and claims for damages for harms that occurred many many years ago and ninety one washington state legislature recognized this this issue and allowed these claims to be brought by an acting r c w forty four point one six three four  to allow for broad avenue overdress for these claims to be brought the last thirty years washington state courts interpret in this statute i have allowed claims of this nature to go forward into  trial even though the harms occurred many years ago so you j c was one of the st decisions to recognize that the legislature intended it broad reading in application of this statute limitations we would like to present and that we made below for the st aardman that we made below that wasn't considered by the district court is that the eighty did not make any connection that she had a claim against the school district for negligent supervision and retention until approximately two thousand and fifteen after she had spoken to a friend who was also an attorney there's no evidence in the record prior to that da that she had connected the fact that she her abuse her damages were the cause of the district there is a distinction to be made between mr craig verver as the  perpetrator and the district as the entity that was involved with supervising eighty when she was a student the evidence submitted in opposition to this argument is simply that eighty knew that what her teacher had done was wrong and she at one point wanted to report him counsel is is the teacher verver still in this case where is he settled or otherwise  thank you for what you have is a situation where the the titular tortfeasor as it were is the one responsible the case but the negligent suppose it towards reason might be that's correct your honor and if we look at the washington cases starting with funkhouser funkhouser was an interesting case because it was decided rate around the time that the legislature was in acting four point one six three four and it was actually decided on on common law grounds and in that decision it articulated the point of law that that a and to the discovery rule involving claims of child sexual  element of injury for the claim to occur but how much injury has to be shown before that happens and that's a great question your honor so if we're moving on to the causation damages element we would submit that even if we set aside the issue that the eighty did not discover that she had a claim against the school district for negligent supervision and retention that she also did not discover the full extent of her damages if we look closely i think to that issue the district court did a full recent analysis and really found this case to be very similar to karole it does appear remarkably similar can you tell me where the district court erred in its analysis yes your honor absolutely the critical factor with cool rolo is that as it it recognizes and distinguishing hallman as well as the course case that there was no allegation by the plaintiff in that case that he did not connect the harms to the abuse and that's that's the missing element here as well because what we have is a case where eighty was in a what some may describe as a relationship with this individual which she is in fact described as a relationship with this individual and had no wonder standing that it was in fact a harmful abusive relationship that started when she was a minor and very impressionable and had a long lasting impact all of the statements that i thought that she had connected it to the abuse earlier when she went into counseling and indicated all the  issues that she had and the south harm and connected it to the harmful relationship that she had with this teacher i would disagree with your honor i think that if you closely look at the medical records there's no evidence that it was connected we don't have any testimony from any of the treating providers saying that she connected it we don't have we don't have anything other than a tease testimony and the records themselves but the records themselves are  less than clear let's take for example the two thousand and thirteen record and this was after she had she presented at this at this treating appointment and she was talking about how she was in a relationship with someone with a disability and would like some help navigating certain aspects of that she's dealing with gender stuff and just want someone friends or family to talk about that also ongoing issues around an abusive relationship and then there was a diagnosis at the end of it than just men disorder there's no connection between the the when you when you when you say that there's a recognition that i've suffered damages that falls under coursed which is that of course someone who sexually abuse is going to understand that they were damaged but this case is a little bit more sinister than that because this is not a situation where there was a one instance of a rape where everyone knows this is horrific and horrifying or clear a five year old who was molested by someone in their family where you you have this idea all along that this is a really horrible thing what we're seeing in these records is there is a discovery from her only that she was in an abusive relationship that's it that's not a connection of the damages for which she is seeking to recover redress there's a difference between that there's a difference between knowing that you're learning that you're damaged or understanding that you were damaged in so far as being abused and then the actual lifelong effects of that and how that how the impacts the trajectory of your life isn't there some evidence in the record from the bishop that is early as two thousand and three she saw the words he said was harmful right so so again your honor that would fall under the course  is a case in washington that says that when you are abused you know that it's wrong you know that that cause some amount of harm the critical fact is that it is not until you discover the full extent of your  twenty two thousand and thirteen time period where she says that she was sexually abused or in an abusive relationship but there's nothing connecting the fact that she was in this abusive relationship to the damages that she suffered there's no therapist testimony saying that she made that connection in front of me or i helped her make that connection all there is is evidence that she did not make that connection as she testified and she testified that she for example here's here's here's part of the problem with her reasoning this is found on your twenty seven dollars which is page twenty of the order the district court said that as eighty herself explained and she citing deposition testimony i have experienced nightmares and different manifestations of p t s d anxiety kind of things hyper vigilance ever since things began with craig berger in an inappropriate secretive way i don't know when i would call that p t s d because my understanding of that's involved and then the conclusion is thus in the light most favorable to eighty there's no genuine issue of material fact that eighty's problems associated with p t s d or at most a quantitative difference from her previous problems for which she received a diagnosis in april two thousand and ten the problem with this reasoning is that all that eighty's explain here is that she experienced nightmares and different manifestation no point in this is she saying that she connected this to the harms at no point in this testimony does she say she connected that with what happened to her and she made this connection in two thousand and twelve or thirteen so it's one thing to say that you have symptoms and you're suffering and it's another thing to understand that there's a connection there and that's the missing element here that was not even disputed in coral o and that's that's the difference this is this is much more on all fours with where the holman case where we have a situation where in that case there was an individual who presented to therapy and was diagnosed with p t s d and had a litany of symptoms and then years later brought a lawsuit a court of appeals allowed that lawsuit to go forward because there was no evidence that he connected those issues to being abused and one of the things that that that case cited which is interesting and a political here is that he he thought that the relationship was that the district court improperly dismissed her claims and should have allowed these issues to go forward for a fact finder to determine when she in fact discovered at a minimum the court disregarded plaintiff's initial argument or st argument that she had not discovered that she had a liability action against the school district which is separate and distinct from a liability action against mr verver well i will i will go ahead and lean over a little bit may please the court my name is charles leach i am the attorney for everett school district here today i apologize if i cough i'm still fighting the fall  and i apologized to the record if it reflects that this case we would ask that the court affirm the district court decision we believe the order is well rationale and laid out in particular the facts in this case are entirely different than any of the cases that are cited in the record in particular the reliance on coursed funkhouser or holeman are easily distinguished from the present facts this case does not involve like those cases an individual who experienced sexual abuse at the age of eight or thirteen or twelve but an individual that entered into a abuse scenario there is no question the record at the tail end of her experience in high school and then continued for nine years over which that time period the record is clear she engaged in a process of revelation and realisation relative to the harm that relationship caused the record has a variety of evidence starting in two thousand and three with bishop solomon an elder of the latter day saints church that she went ahead and met with who informed or was inappropriate asked her to report it also asked her and actually put her in the record on the phone with mr verver where and she was going to tell him she was going to report it to the school continuing on from there we have a timeline in the record that goes on and on from two thousand and six where we have an entry where she talks about possible damage and journals about issues with mr verver actually working them out going through further to two thousand and nine when she had an episode in a french class that she attributed to her relationship and the related impact with mr verver then culminating at that point which when she was in a doctoral program at u c l a with their a p starting in two thousand and ten and going to two thousand and eleven of which a topic and we have all these in the record of discussion about the impact of the relationship with craig notwithstanding even that in two thousand and twelve she goes ahead and she emails her advisor at u c l a and specifically articulate the concerns related to the impact that her relationship with craig for which in two thousand and twelve she ended up on her ability to go ahead and work within the ph d program and to teach in a classroom setting she then also went and studied abroad at cambridge where she received by our own testimony ten sessions of therapy related to the impact certainly in part of the relationship of craig verver and then the district court focuses on may two thousand and thirteen upon her return to a wherein she fills out an intake form and engages in therapy where she goes ahead and acknowledges the impact of that relationship at the outset of the therapy and is it diagnosed for the  time with an adjustment disorder with anxiety now council which or how do you respond to the argument that she hadn't discovered that the school this case the record is replete with references to discussions of the power imbalance of him being a teacher of going through a process even back when bishop solomon his testimony in the record talks about  him being in a relationship with a married man who also works for the school district and that is consistent throughout the entire timeline all the way up until the outset of the case her recognition of that we submit  is sufficient the district court in its order actually specifically cited to the coffee kid the city case on the th circuit which said knowing you have a legal cause of action is not a requisite to go ahead and bring  a lawsuit and to have that understanding would not to not have understand does not told the statute of limitations in this case further with regard to her concerns she's a very very articulate young lady through the course of her journaling and she's very prolific in her writing and it surrounds the power imbalance and the nature of that relationship and all those discussions occur before tw hohman and in funkhouser funk hauser was a suppression case coursed which involved a letter to a father essentially saying complaining of rape after it occurred and that was found insufficient by the court of appeals there was the testimony of two treating physicians that had treated her just in the course of her dealing with the injury similarly in holman there were two treaters that testified and in that case where there was a diagnosis of p t s d specifically those two treaters specifically testified that holeman had not made the connection and there were similar testimony and coursed that the plaintiff had not made the connection in karole zero which the district court highlighted and we believe is on point there was a diagnosis of post traumatic stress and then subsequent testimony from treaters over the process by which this connection was made and the quantitative testimony the court found in that case and also the district court found was just merely more of the same issues in this case p t s d only comes up in the record when there is a diagnosis actually a diagnosis excuse me a complaint raised by the plaintiff in two thousand sixteen to her primary care physician no where in this case is there any treater or fact witness testimony wherein it is claimed she suffered from post traumatic stress there is adjustment disorder diagnoses when she was in treatment where she is discussing the power imbalance there is also a discussion of all the symptomatology of what is later plaintiff's expert in his declaration asserts is manifestations of post traumatic stress but as counsel just cited to you in the record and which was a light upon by the district court there were nightmares sleeplessness anxiety use of alcohol self harm restlessness inability to form relationships all of those are discussed on masse throughout all of the testimony in the record one thing that plaintiffs did not put in the record in opposition to the motion for summary judgment was any treater testimony explaining or expanding upon or like the court encountered in coursed or the court encountered at home and where there was a traitor who said i treated eighty and i am telling you under oath she did not make the connection or has not made the connection until this date of the harm and that statute language is very clear so we don't have to go through the elements it specifically says within three years of the time the victim discovered that the act caused the injury for which the claim is brought and the district court focused primarily on that language as to the act that caused the injury it's not the diagnosis of the injury which goes to something different and looking throughout this record she was presenting with the symptoms that she asserts she deserves recovery for even before her by her own admission two thousand and three in fact she was experiencing them by your own testimony when she was still in school in the relationship with him while he should not have been doing this in week school at high school scuse me judge but unlike all those other cases we have her journal entries we have the the records of treaters we have the efforts she made to go ahead and address and deal with this her coming to the conclusion of her going ahead and breaking off the relationship in two thousand and twelve there was a lot going on there and it's clear on the record that she was considering the impact at the time she made that decision and one of the things i will i will just say i just want to get clear for the record there's a variety of discussion by dr kleiman of essentially her attempts to conceal herself and gender identity issues and the district believes that's not supported anywhere by the record that she was somebody who came out as genderqueer of her own decision and developed relationships later in fact being married to another genderqueer individual and that that is just another indication of a far reach in disregarding that declaration and the evidence and the underlying decision the district court looked again to carollo the dall where there was a preexisting post traumatic stress disorder diagnosis and then later on there were other diagnoses made as a part of the case of other ailments that conceivably if we're going to go with diagnosis equals injury under the statute that would have stopped the case and would have stopped it from being dismissed and would have allowed her to continue she has a litany of acts in the record that arguments and some  i guess attempt by her to to minimize that she's very clear and unlike a lot of these cases this record is one that withstand scrutiny normally these types of cases don't come on dismissal certainly as some of the practices in that area i will admit that but in this case and as the judge observed the judges observed in carollo there is a limit to liberality under the revised code of washington for either tolling or when a sexual abuse claim for a minor accrues this one we believe is clear and would also believe that when faced with the question of whether a t connected her difficulties  with abuse by verver we can only reach one conclusion and that is that she did and she did it before the time in which they brought the case and without a doubt the questions all sit down so i think your honour's thank you for the corn funkhouser said that washington state common law that there are likely to do that are likely to delay recognition of the full extent of inflicted by the perpetrator of sexual abuse are also quote likely to delay discovery that the abuse might have been prevented if persons having a special relationship with the with child had not breached a duty to protect the child from abuse subsequently in the cloud case washington state appellate court held that the school district points to no evidence in the record from which a rational trier of fact could determine that darryl the plainti should have discovered his negligent ritesh and supervision employee claim against the school district sooner than that this is the point this this reflects washington law that we have to have a discovery of all elements to the cause of action the district has not shown that there are an absence of issues of material fact as to duty and breach the undisputed evidence is that she did not discover that she had a retention claim a supervision claim until two thousand and fifteen on that basis alone this court must reverse and remand for further proceedings with regard to the causation and damages element which is separate and distinct i would i would urge the court to closely evaluate the medical records because none of those show that she made a connection to being abused and the subsequent harm in fact in the two thousand and thirteen record that the district just indicated that it heavily heavily relies on there's a statement about the nightmares that quote she reported she recently came back to the us after being overseas for studies and is experiencing weekly nightmares and difficulty falling asleep and there is no connection that that that as a result of being abused there's no indication as to whether that was caused by a stress or because she was in a relationship with another individual at that time there's no indication that those nightmares were because of an adjustment from living overseas and coming back to the united states nothing it's just a pure factual statement just like we have with with and top and i'm sorry eighty's testimony that she experienced nightmares and anxiety there's no evidence that she connected that to the actual abuse and that plays out over and over in the records there are vague nebulous references to her being damaged or having suffered harm but that is not enough and we appreciate the excellent arguments on both sides the case