Opinion ID: 2542903
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: The Governmental Interests and Burden

Text: ¶ 42 While a higher standard of proof would be unlikely to cause a large financial impact on the government, see Santosky, 455 U.S. at 767, 102 S.Ct. 1388, some additional cost is inevitable in order for the government to acquire and present sufficient evidence to satisfy the higher burden. Moreover, under the third Mathews factor, we should consider the governmental interest in protecting the public against abuse by health care providers. Specifically, the legislature has established a policy of assur[ing] the public of the adequacy of professional competence and conduct in the healing arts. RCW 18.130.010; see also RCW 18.88A.010 (stating, [t]he legislature declares that the registration of nursing assistants and providing for voluntary certification of those who wish to seek higher levels of qualification is in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare). The governmental interest in assuring competency of health care providers favors application of the preponderance standard. ¶ 43 In addition, the legislature has articulated a governmental interest in protecting vulnerable adults. See, e.g., ch. 74.34 RCW (creating a reporting system for abuse, neglect, or abandonment of vulnerable adults); ch. 9A.44 RCW (imposing heightened penalties for sex crimes against vulnerable adults); RCW 9.96A.060 (restoration of employment rights for felons does not include individuals employed by the department of social and health services if they have unsupervised access to vulnerable adults); RCW 18.20.125 (requiring inspections of boarding homes to protect vulnerable adults). This interest also favors application of the preponderance standard of proof. ¶ 44 Finally, the legislature has noted the existence of the high and often critical turnover among the principal cadre of health care workers who provide for the basic needs of patients. RCW 18.88A.010. I acknowledge that the government has an interest in ensuring adequate access to health care providers and that this interest is furthered by a higher standard of proof. However, this interest is intertwined with the other governmental interests discussed above and should not be given independent consideration. The government's true interest is in protecting its citizens from incompetent health care providers. The interest in access to health care providers is undermined if the workers are incompetent. Thus, this court should not give much weight to an asserted governmental interest in ensuring access to potentially incompetent health care workers. ¶ 45 As demonstrated above, all three Mathews factors weigh in favor of the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof in registered nursing assistant disciplinary proceedings. Thus, I would uphold WAC 246-10-606, which establishes the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof in such proceedings. ¶ 46 Substantial Evidence. In a factual challenge to a lower court ruling, this court should grant relief only if the lower court's determination is not supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). Evidence is substantial if the record contains `a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order.' Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 151 Wash.2d 568, 588, 90 P.3d 659 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wash.2d 543, 553, 14 P.3d 133 (2000)). ¶ 47 Ms. Ongom failed to establish that the trial court's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Ms. Ongom challenged the hearing testimony as not credible and argued that it is just as probable that [she] is innocent of all wrongdoing. Pet. for Review at 11-12. This court is not well suited to make determinations of the credibility of witnesses. Port of Seattle, 151 Wash.2d at 588, 90 P.3d 659. Therefore, I would affirm the suspension of Ms. Ongom's registered nursing assistance license as supported by substantial evidence. [7]