Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA: Legal Roundup Division II

Jolley v. Regence Blueshield

Dr. Jolley sued Regence Blueshield for violating the Consumer Protections Act and for terminating his practitioner agreement, arguing that Regence failed to provide him with a fair review.  The trial court granted summary judgment on both issues in favor of Regence.  Dr. Jolley appeals.

Dr. Jolley and Regence entered into a practitioner agreement whereby the agreement was later amended to satisfy the WACs in regards to the process of dispute resolution.  The agreement discussed termination in three sections including an at will termination clause, a termination upon suspension of the doctor’s ability to practice medicine, and a section stating that a provider may be terminated if they fail to meet the Company’s Credentialing criteria. 

In 2003 the Washington State Department of Health Medical Quality Assurance Commission (MQAC) issued charges against Dr. Jolley for having sexual relations with his patients’ mothers.  His license was suspended but he was granted a stay for the suspension and was placed on probation for 10 years. Regence notified him that his contract automatically terminated when his license was suspended and explained his right to appeal. During the appeal process his contract was later reinstated by an arbitrator, however, Regence again terminated his contract under the at will clause. Jolley appealed. Regence later stated that they had terminated him for conditions on his license.  An arbitrator found for Regence and stated specifically that Regence met their fair review standard and provided Jolley with an opportunity to state his case.

The Court of Appeals addressed the issue of fair review, which requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.  Jolley argued that he did not receive proper notification because he was told his termination was under the at will clause but later found out that it was due to conditions on his license.  The Court disagreed with Jolley holding that Regence had reasons for its at will termination, which did not convert it to a for cause termination.  Second, Jolley argued that he did not have the opportunity to be heard, however, the court disagreed finding that Jolley went through both Regence’s internal appeals process and an arbitration provided to him, which gave amble opportunity to be heard. 

The Court of Appeals held that he lacked standing to bring a CPA claim, but even if his claim were considered it would fail because there is not evidence to support an unfair or deceptive act or practice.

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.