Opinion ID: 2584686
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Conditional Right to Government-Paid Interpreter Services

Text: ¶ 16 Though petitioners have no statutory right to government-paid interpreter services at either the department or board level, petitioners do have a right to paid interpreter services throughout a hearing if the Board in its discretion appoints an interpreter at the Board's hearings. This right comes from the interplay between RCW 2.43.030(1) and WAC 263-12-097. ¶ 17 RCW 2.43.030(1) defines the scope of the right to an appointed interpreter's services in a legal proceeding: Whenever an interpreter is appointed to assist a non-English-speaking person in a legal proceeding, the appointing authority shall, in the absence of a written waiver by the person, appoint a certified or a qualified interpreter to assist the person throughout the proceedings. (Emphasis added.) If the Board appoints an interpreter to assist an LEP individual in a legal proceeding, including board hearings, the Board shall appoint the interpreter to assist the LEP throughout the proceedings. Here, the Board, in its discretion, decided to appoint interpreters to assist petitioners at their hearings. However, the IAJ forbade interpreter services for some attorney-client communication and, in one case, barred translation of witness testimony other than that of the petitioner. Communicating with counsel and understanding testimony offered during a hearing are both legitimate aspects of a legal proceeding, and the mandatory language of RCW 2.43.030(1) does not permit the Board to appoint an interpreter and then restrict the scope of the interpreter's services during a hearing. If the Board appoints an interpreter at appeals hearings, chapter 2.43 RCW requires the Board to allow interpreter services for all aspects of the hearing, including translating attorney-client communications and testimony of all witnesses. [8] ¶ 18 The Board has discretion to appoint and pay for an interpreter at a Board hearing even if not statutorily required to do so. WAC 263-12-097, provided below in pertinent part, provides the contours of this discretion: (1) When ... a non-English-speaking person as defined in chapter 2.43 RCW is a party or witness in a hearing before the board of industrial insurance appeals, the industrial appeals judge may appoint an interpreter to assist the party or witness throughout the proceeding. .... (4) The board of industrial insurance appeals will pay interpreter fees and expenses when the industrial appeals judge has determined the need for interpretive services as set forth in subsection 1. WAC 263-12-097 (emphasis added). Subsection (1)'s permissive language gives the Board discretion to appoint an interpreter for a party or witness, regardless of whether the initiating the legal proceedings requirement of RCW 2.43.040(2) is satisfied. However, this discretion does not extend to the scope of services the interpreter may provide, which as stated above, is governed by RCW 2.43.030(1). The mandatory language in WAC 263-12-097(4) requires the Board to pay for interpreter services if the Board elects to appoint an interpreter. Read with RCW 2.43.030(1), the rule that arises is if the Board decides to appoint an interpreter, the Board shall pay for the associated interpreter costs and must allow the interpreter to translate whenever necessary to assist the claimant during the hearing. [9] Kustura, 142 Wash.App. at 681, 175 P.3d 1117. However, this right is limited to the hearing itself. Nothing in chapter 2.43 RCW or WAC 263-12-097 requires paid interpreter services outside of the actual board hearing. Our holding is thus limited to the hearing itself and does not extend to any hearing preparation, including interviews, medical evaluations, and preparing or responding to discovery. [10]