Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group - Personal Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: 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 and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

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.