Court Opinion

ID: 9540133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:13:01.01974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:39.243712
License: Public Domain

Munson, J.
(concurring) — Zoutendyk v. Washington State Patrol, 95 Wn.2d 693, 628 P.2d 1308 (1981), aff'g 27 Wn. App. 65, 616 P.2d 674 (1980), has changed what was a strong dissent on the issue of who bears the cost on appeal, to a reluctant concurrence. While I might differ with the unanimous opinion of my distinguished colleagues of Division Two, I must recognize the rule of supremacy, when a unanimous opinion of our Supreme Court concurs with their analysis.
In Zoutendyk, both courts interpreted the phrase, "Pay*28ment of the cost of a transcript used on appeal shall await determination of the appeal, and shall be made by the employing agency if the employee prevails", (RCW 41.06-.180) to mean the agency always pays. The Court of Appeals opinion concluded: "Again, the statutory scheme (by its resounding silence) is clear. The entity which bore the initial cost cannot recoup that cost." Zoutendyk v. Washington State Patrol, supra, 27 Wn. App. at 70. Thus, the failure of the legislature to specifically state that the employee who did not prevail would have to reimburse the transcribing agency for its costs of transcription results in the public employer always paying for the record on appeal.
As Zoutendyk and this case indicate, payment for transcription of the proceedings is a policy decision for the legislature. Perhaps by its failure to state who pays if the public employee does not prevail on appeal, the legislature has made that decision.
I am constrained to concur.
Reconsideration denied August 26, 1981.
Review denied by Supreme Court October 30, 1981.