Connect with us

Washington

WA state discipline of teachers in many cases shielded from the public

Published

on

WA state discipline of teachers in many cases shielded from the public



An InvestigateWest analysis of the state’s educator misconduct database shows gaps allowing teachers to escape scrutiny

In November 2024, a woman in her early 30s walked into her former high school in Vancouver, Washington, and reported to the principal that while she was a student, she was groomed for a sexual relationship by Shadbreon Gatson, a longtime English teacher at the school. 

Advertisement

Police arrested Gatson, and news coverage inspired two other former students from Hudson’s Bay High School to come forward with similar allegations against Gatson.

Records showed that the educator’s inappropriate behavior was brought to school leaders’ attention at least four times in the last 15 years. One woman who came forward in 2024 was interviewed by school leaders a decade earlier, when she was a sophomore student. A school janitor found her and Gatson, who was partially undressed, alone in the band room with the lights off. Administrators didn’t properly investigate, according to a third-party investigation ordered by the school district. The sexual abuse continued.

Partly because the district failed to act for years, the educator avoided a criminal conviction — prosecutors dropped charges against him in January 2025 because the statute of limitations had passed. And because Gatson then resigned, he didn’t have to participate in the school district’s third-party investigation. He also voluntarily surrendered his teaching license, which means the public can’t see details of his case in Washington’s statewide teacher misconduct database. InvestigateWest could not reach him for comment.

An InvestigateWest analysis of 10 years’ worth of cases from the statewide database reveals how Gatson’s case is just one of many illustrating how teachers in Washington accused of sexual misconduct can escape accountability and public scrutiny, opening the door for them to find jobs elsewhere. 

While the database, managed by the state’s K-12 education oversight agency, offers one of the only windows into the prevalence of educator sexual misconduct in Washington, it also shrouds some of the most troubling cases.

Advertisement

Washington is largely ahead of other states in tracking and publishing the names of teachers who have faced disciplinary action, but many gaps remain. When a member of the public goes to the website, the database doesn’t prominently show why a person’s teaching license was suspended or mandatorily revoked, making that information available only in the case files. And if a person voluntarily surrenders their license, as Gatson did, those case files aren’t accessible without filing a public records request, which can take months to fulfill. 

One hundred and fifty-seven teachers, or nearly 45% of all teachers who appear in the database since 2015, voluntarily surrendered their licenses, shielding their files –– and misconduct –– from public view. In Seattle Public Schools, all but four of the 15 educators recorded in the database voluntarily surrendered their license.

“This is how they are being hidden in plain sight without anyone’s knowledge of their wrongdoing,” said Terri Miller, the board president of the National Center to Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct & Exploitation, which advocates for federal and state legislation to prevent and address sexual misconduct in schools.

“That is deliberate enabling of child predation in our schools,” Miller added. 

Advertisement

The Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, which oversees the state’s misconduct database, declined interview requests from InvestigateWest. 

In response to written questions, Katy Payne, a spokesperson for the state agency, said an educator is allowed to voluntarily surrender their license for any reason as long as they have not received a final order for revocation or been convicted of a felony crime. Once a teacher voluntarily surrenders their license, the state agency is not required under state law to open an investigation unless a formal complaint is received from a superintendent. A teacher can also reapply for their teaching license under some circumstances if they voluntarily surrender it, as long as they disclosed why they surrendered it in the first place.

When asked why the voluntary surrender case files are not included in the state’s public facing database, Payne said it is because the forms “do not meet web accessibility requirements,” but can be obtained through a public records request.

An analysis of the available case files, coupled with a review of media reports published over the last decade, shows that of the 349 teachers added to the state’s database for having their license revoked, suspended or voluntarily surrendered, 160 teachers –– or approximately 46% of all cases –– involve sexual misconduct. 

And that’s likely an undercount. Many teachers who were found to have committed sexual misconduct weren’t categorized as such in OSPI’s internal database, according to InvestigateWest’s review of the files. For example, a substitute teacher at the Deer Park School District, Nathan White, lost his Washington teaching license because he was arrested in Utah for trying to meet with a 13-year-old girl for sex. His misconduct was not labeled as sexual misconduct on the back end of the state’s database but instead “character/fitness,” a broader category that can encompass sexual misconduct.

Advertisement

The database of misconduct and disciplinary action is reported each year to the governor-appointed Washington State Professional Educator Standards Board, which sets the rules dictating educator certifications and code of conduct issues. 

“This database and the way they’re tracking it is insufficient to protect victims and protect kids,” said Ashton Dennis, a personal injury lawyer with the Washington Law Center who specializes in sexual abuse cases. “That is a glaring failure on behalf of the state to not record (these) things as sexual misconduct.”

Gaps in Washington’s teacher misconduct database

Each year, Washington’s K-12 education oversight agency receives complaints from superintendents across the state regarding potential professional misconduct issues like leaving students unattended, failing to report child abuse, sexually pursuing students, watching porn at school, using drugs, and lying on a job application. 

Last year, the state received 143 complaints from superintendents, according to Payne, and issued formal discipline — suspensions, revocations and voluntary surrenders — against 35 educators. Fourteen of those educators voluntarily surrendered their licenses, making their disciplinary files not accessible in the public database. 

The database only includes school district employees who have a teaching license, meaning it excludes others such as coaches, bus drivers or support staff. 

Advertisement

For example, Dennis helped represent around a dozen former students who were sexually abused by a wrestling coach, David O’Connor, in the University Place School District located in the Puget Sound. The school district has paid out nearly $14 million on behalf of victims so far through settlement agreements. Since the wrestling coach did not have a teaching certificate and does not appear in the state’s database, it is less likely that members of the public or future employers would know about the alleged misconduct.

There are also long-standing gaps in how states communicate with each other about disciplined teachers. The disciplinary files sometimes don’t follow them to another state, or there’s a lag. 

Washington’s education oversight agency uses a national database, the NASDTEC Educator Identification Clearinghouse, to screen potential candidates, but if other states fail to report an action taken against a teacher, or if there are delays, they might unknowingly hire a teacher with serious misconduct on their record.

In February 2020, school administrators at the Toppenish School District in Eastern Washington received a job application from Alexander Lacey, who was applying to be a school psychologist. He was qualified for the position, having held the same role for numerous years in California. 

On his job application, as well as on his forms to apply for a Washington teaching license, he wrote that he had never been reprimanded or investigated by a prior employer regarding misconduct or resigned from a position in the middle of an investigation. Neither was true.

Advertisement

Records show that he had resigned from his previous position in California three months earlier, after a student told the school district that Lacey had groomed and pursued a sexual relationship with her during her senior year in 2018. The student had survived a suicide attempt that year, and as the school psychologist, Lacey had been assigned to look after her well-being, records show.

In April 2021, following the California investigation, the state revoked his teaching license. But it took another two years before Washington took action. Records show that investigators with Washington’s oversight agency only reprimanded the educator for lying on his job application –– not for the previous sexual misconduct that occurred over state lines. 

And instead of revoking his license as the California regulators did, his license was instead suspended for three months and was reinstated in September 2023. He now works for an international study abroad program, according to his LinkedIn.

Payne, with OSPI, said in an email that if a teacher is under investigation by state investigators or if disciplinary action is taken, a banner will appear when the school district searches the person’s name in the state’s internal database. 

But since California hadn’t completed its investigation into Lacey by the time he applied to work in Washington, there likely wasn’t a flag on his application in the system. And even if there was, the alert doesn’t show what the actual issue was.

Advertisement

“If a school district is considering an applicant and their record contains a banner, the district could contact OSPI to request additional information, they could ask the candidate directly, and/or they could decide not to consider the candidate for the position,” Payne wrote. “School districts have the experience to know that disciplinary action is something to investigate further before making a job offer to a candidate.”

Payne said OSPI adds new information from the national database monthly.

State database: the tip of the iceberg

Washington’s statewide teacher misconduct database is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the prevalence of teacher sexual misconduct in K-12 schools. And Washington isn’t alone in failing to track or accurately quantify how often it happens. The U.S. Department of Education, the Department of Justice and child welfare agencies do not collect consistent data regarding employee sexual misconduct in K-12 schools. 

Researchers estimate that one in every 10 students experiences some form of educator sexual misconduct by the time they graduate high school, with the average age a survivor discloses their experiences being 52 years old. Students may not come forward because they fear the perpetrator, they feel shame about what happened or they might not recognize the teacher’s behavior as abuse. 

“Students aren’t taught what to look for in terms of boundary crossing, and they might instead think, ‘Oh, this is cool to be friends with the teacher,’” said Joel Levin, the co-founder and director of programs for the Seattle-based nonprofit Stop Sexual Assault in Schools. “It could be subtle at the beginning, but then sometimes it progresses from these sorts of subtle flirting things to physical contact.” 

Advertisement

Levin founded his nonprofit in 2015 after his daughter was assaulted by a peer on a school field trip and his family struggled to hold Seattle Public Schools accountable. “The revictimization, institutional betrayal, this type of thing that we experienced firsthand –– we didn’t want other families to go through it like we did.”

Research shows that administrators and school leaders can often fail to recognize common grooming signs and report the behavior to law enforcement or other state oversight agencies meant to investigate claims of sexual misconduct. Inadequate district investigations and union negotiations can also keep misconduct from being reported. 

When a teacher is allowed to quietly resign from their position during an investigation, they can avoid formal discipline that could ultimately prohibit them from being hired elsewhere. In these instances, a teacher is often allowed to leave without a “termination for cause” on their employment record and a school district can avoid a lengthy –– and at times expensive –– firing process. The practice, which makes it difficult to quantify the prevalence of teacher sexual abuse, is known to researchers and investigators as “passing the trash.” 

“There are so many things that are wrong with this practice of passing the trash that does even more detrimental harm to victims,” said Miller, with the National Center to Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct & Exploitation. 

“Oftentimes, (victims) say the abuse was bad enough, but knowing there were people that knew, knowing there were people that could have stepped in and intervened and helped at the time, that betrayal is sometimes a harder pill to swallow for them,” she added.

Advertisement

A separation agreement is what allowed a Mercer Island High School English teacher to quietly resign from the district despite misconduct concerns. 

Eric Ayrault, who taught in the Mercer Island High School’s English Department from 1997 until 2019, was under investigation in 2018 for misconduct related to “maintaining professional staff/student boundaries” before his resignation, school records show. 

The investigation was initiated in part after three students shared a GoogleDoc with the principal that documented over a dozen alleged instances of inappropriate behavior over the course of a semester.

In his separation agreement, Erin Battersby, the head of legal for the Mercer Island School District, wrote that the three week investigation into the allegations had concluded “without a finding.” He resigned the same day without facing any formal discipline and went on to teach at seven schools in Colorado and California, according to his LinkedIn.

Battersby, who is in charge of investigating reports of teacher misconduct within the Mercer Island School District, declined numerous interview requests.

Advertisement

School records show that Ayrault had been under investigation the year prior after a fellow teacher reported to the administration that she had overheard students complaining that he was “creepy” and made them feel uncomfortable. 

The investigative report obtained by InvestigateWest showed the educator was found to have violated three separate school policies, including “Maintaining Professional Staff/Student Boundaries” and sexual harassment. He was required to enter a no-contact agreement with one of the students, which included a safety plan for the student. But the discipline was nominal. He received a written reprimand and was required to take additional training. His conduct was not reported to the state, and he was allowed to continue teaching.

“Reports to OSPI are the responsibility of the superintendent and in this instance, we do not know why the superintendent at the time did not make a report,” Ian Henry, the spokesperson for the Mercer Island School District, wrote in an email to InvestigateWest. “Unfortunately, we can’t speak to the actions of a former superintendent.”

Ayrault’s misconduct was finally reported to Washington’s oversight agency in October 2025 by the current superintendent, after InvestigateWest published reports regarding two other longtime English teachers at the school who had engaged in inappropriate relationships with students. But as of Jan. 26, 2025, Ayrault does not appear in OSPI’s misconduct database. 

The first teacher, Gary “Chris” Twombley, was quietly put on paid administrative leave in 2023 and later resigned and voluntarily surrendered his teaching license, according to a settlement agreement between the school district and the teachers’ union. 

Advertisement

The second teacher, Curtis Johnston, abruptly announced his retirement a few days after InvestigateWest and the Mercer Island Reporter published an investigation into Twombley. It was later revealed, after a victim came forward, that the school district had been made aware that Johnston was engaging in a sexual relationship with a student in 2011 but that administrators failed to properly investigate. 

Current administrators with the school district launched an investigation into Johnston following InvestigateWest’s reporting, but closed it less than two months later after being “unable to make any findings.” 

Dennis, the attorney with the Washington Law Center law firm, said he often sees school districts blaming the teachers’ union for not allowing them to fire a teacher who displayed problematic behavior.

Unions are legally required to provide fair, impartial and good faith representation to all members following a landmark 1944 Supreme Court ruling. But Dennis sees school districts using the union as a scapegoat more often than not.

“If there’s children’s safety involved, that is not an acceptable excuse,” he said.

Advertisement

The Washington Education Association, the state’s teachers union, declined interview requests for this story.

Dennis said when school districts allow a teacher to quietly resign from their position without formal discipline, they are often thinking about cost savings, not student safety.

“They may not want to frame it that way, but at the end of the day, that’s what they’re doing. And it’s a conscious decision that they’re making. Saying, ‘Hey, do we want to fight this? It’s going to cost us X, Y and Z, or do we just move on?’ Meanwhile, kids are being harmed.”

“It makes my blood boil,” he added.

Miller, who advocates against educator sexual abuse nationwide, stressed that there are state and federal laws on the books that prohibit school districts from allowing teachers to avoid accountability and swiftly move on to different jobs.

Advertisement

While federal law doesn’t outright ban the use of settlement or confidentiality agreements, it does discourage school districts from using them in cases of sexual misconduct, and it mandates that states enact policies or regulations to prohibit such agreements.

“But there’s not enough teeth in it,” Miller said. 

She was surprised to learn these agreements were still being negotiated in Washington, considering it was one of the pioneering states to pass model legislation banning them more than 20 years ago.

“If this is still happening, well, maybe Washington needs to ramp up their penalties,” Miller said. “Because they are deliberately endangering children and students, and they are deliberately setting up other districts for liability when those people offend again.”

The King County Sexual Assault Resource Center offers free and confidential support and information 24 hours a day for survivors, family and others assisting survivors at 1-888-998-6423.

Advertisement

Moe K. Clark is a collaborative investigative reporter at InvestigateWest, covering Washington’s criminal justice system and other topics. Her work is supported by the Murrow News Fellowship, a state-funded journalism initiative managed by Washington State University.



Source link

Washington

Future uncertain for site of former Mount Washington church destroyed in massive fire

Published

on

Future uncertain for site of former Mount Washington church destroyed in massive fire






Source link

Continue Reading

Washington

Washington law says to alert the public when doctors are accused of misconduct. It can take months

Published

on

Washington law says to alert the public when doctors are accused of misconduct. It can take months


This story describes detailed allegations of sexual violence and other sexual misconduct.

This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with KUOW. Sign up for Dispatches to get ProPublica’s stories in your inbox every week.

Experts on laws protecting patient safety give Washington state high marks for the types of information it is willing to disclose about doctors accused of wrongdoing.

Like other states, Washington lets patients look up doctors by name online to read any state allegations against them. But decades ago, Washington lawmakers created a separate pathway that doesn’t leave the homework to patients, mandating that regulators issue a press release whenever an investigation results in formal allegations being filed against a doctor. Washington is alone in legally requiring such proactive outreach to the news media, the Federation of State Medical Boards says.

Advertisement

Yet an examination of Washington discipline records by KUOW and ProPublica found that regardless of what the law calls for, Washington fails to reliably call the public’s attention to serious misconduct allegations against doctors who have been allowed to keep practicing while their cases proceed.

Announcements can take months to go out — and may not go out at all until after the case is resolved.

Take the case of Brooks Watson, a Richland, Washington, doctor who the state medical board accused of making nonconsensual sexual contact, unwanted sexual advances or inappropriate sexual remarks to five of his coworkers over the course of five years.

During one encounter in 2023, Washington Medical Commission records allege, Watson isolated a subordinate in his office and, without her consent, kissed her, touched her breasts, put his hands down her pants, groped her vagina and exposed his penis.

Advertisement

The commission sent Watson a “statement of charges” alleging sexual misconduct and unprofessional conduct on Aug. 19, 2025, and it amended the charges in June to include an allegation that Watson had assaulted someone at his home.

Yet the commission issued no public announcement about Watson’s case for more than nine months after first filing allegations.

Watson remains licensed to practice, and an online provider database run by the state shows no final decision on his case has been made as of July 6.

The attorney defending him in the criminal case stemming from the incident at his home said that Watson disputes the allegations and that he pleaded not guilty to the misdemeanor assault charge against him. The attorney referred further questions to another lawyer who he said represented Watson in workplace matters; that person acknowledged a request for comment sent by email but did not answer emailed questions or respond to voicemails.

Advertisement

Watson did not answer emails or phone messages seeking his response to the medical commission’s claims. Meeting materials on the commission’s website say Watson had a hearing scheduled in April.

KUOW and ProPublica began examining how and when Washington tells the public about doctors facing discipline following the case of Mark Mulholland, an eastern Washington OB-GYN accused last year of conducting irregular pelvic exams and making inappropriate remarks.

A Washington OB-GYN was repeatedly accused of sexual misconduct. The state medical board let him keep practicing

He initially kept seeing patients, and at least one has accused Mulholland in court of abuse and negligence that she says occurred during the time between when the commission filed formal charges and when it announced them. The woman alleges Mulholland “shoved his fingers into her rectum” and “said to her with confidence that she had a nice-looking and tight vagina.”

Advertisement

More than 80 lawsuits related to Mulholland’s alleged misconduct have been filed against the doctor himself, his former employer Kadlec or its affiliate, the Providence hospital chain.

(Mulholland has not responded to requests for comment, but the doctor or his attorney told the commission previously that he strives to be gentle and respectful with cervical exams and denied conducting them in ways that patients described. In the civil litigation, which remains ongoing, the doctor, Providence and Kadlec all deny wrongdoing. In the state disciplinary case, which remains open, Mulholland signed an interim order agreeing to restrictions on his license.)

As with many announcements of charges against doctors whose licenses remained unrestricted, the commission did not first publish a notice about Mulholland on the press release section of its website, but rather in a subscribers-only email that said nothing about what he was accused of. It came six weeks after charges were filed.

The list is supposed to go out quarterly, a schedule that guarantees many charges stay off the radar for months — or even longer when the board fails to keep to its publication schedule. At least 269 days passed recently without subscribers receiving an email announcing charges being filed against a doctor and without the commission announcing charges in an online press release.

Advertisement

Some cases still have not been publicized.

Presented by KUOW and ProPublica with questions about how it notifies the public, the commission issued a written statement saying it plans to alter its practices to make allegations against doctors more visible.

Although the commission believes its current practices meet the law’s notification requirement, the statement said, the agency “is always looking for ways to grow.”

“Technology and public accessibility standards continue to evolve since the statute was written,” the statement said. The medical commission “recognizes the value in refining our processes and establishing new best practices to enhance transparency.”

A Seattle doctor was investigated for fertility fraud. The case highlights tension between patient, physician rights

Advertisement

On May 29, the same day the commission sent its statement, it sent four email notices announcing initial or updated allegations against licensees who were not immediately suspended — the first such emails subscribers received since June 2025.

Washington state Rep. Gerry Pollet, a Seattle Democrat and outspoken advocate for disclosure and accountability, said the medical commission was “absolutely not complying with the law.”

“The Legislature clearly said, ‘You have to inform the public quickly, and you should do that through a news release,’” Pollet said. “That’s one of the mechanisms. And the implication of a news release is you have to put it out while it’s still news. And waiting months to put something on a limited listserv doesn’t meet the spirit, much less the letter, of the law.”

Pollet said he plans to ask other legislators to join him in contacting the medical commission and asking for more prompt and public notifications.

Advertisement

And if that doesn’t work, he said, “ What we might need is direction in the budget to demand that they follow the law.”

The letter of the law

The Washington Medical Commission has a well established process for looking into the roughly 2,000 allegations of provider misconduct it receives each year.

If an investigation finds evidence that a doctor violated the law, the medical commission issues a statement of charges. The doctor has a right to contest these before a health law judge or the commission issues a final order spelling out any disciplinary action or dropping the case. Months can go by in the interim.

Washington law directs the medical commission to report both statements of charges and final orders to interested parties: the person whose complaint triggered an investigation, certain professional organizations and the public.

Specifically, the law says public notification “shall include press releases to appropriate local news media and the major news wire services.”

Advertisement

Two legal experts said the availability of the state’s email list notifying subscribers of “legal actions,” which requires journalists and others to opt in, conceivably meets the law’s requirements. But Seth Rosenberg, an administrative and employment law attorney, said by email that the fact that it gives only names, dates and locations — not a description of the charges doctors face — arguably means “it is bereft of meaningful detail.”

Whether or not the emails convey enough information, KUOW and ProPublica’s review found that they often are not issued for a long time.

The review focused on charges against doctors whose licenses remained untouched while they awaited a disciplinary decision. It turned up 13 emails or press releases from May 2024 through July 6 that announced charges while the case was still open, five of which were not sent for more than two months after charges were brought.

In another 12 cases, the commission did not send out public notifications until after it resolved charges against the doctor, often months after the physician was put on notice. Three of these cases were shared by way of the agency’s quarterly newsletter, which doesn’t necessarily go to subscribers on the legal actions list.

Four doctors accused last year or in January still have yet to appear in an email, press release or newsletter noting their charges as of July 6.

Advertisement

All told, the commission has gone 100, 200 or even 300 days — in the case of Watson, the Richland doctor accused of sexual misconduct with coworkers — without either publicizing charges or taking away a doctor’s license.

It’s unclear how many of the physicians identified in KUOW and ProPublica’s review continued practicing while waiting for their cases to be resolved, but they had the legal ability to do so.

The commission did not respond when asked to verify that it had failed to publicize cases against doctors for whom no email bulletins could be found from early in the disciplinary process. Executive Director Kyle Karinen said the commission has consistently attached charges to doctors’ entries in an online database and listed charged doctors in commission meeting materials online.

The Washington Department of Health, a related agency that handles sexual misconduct allegations against doctors when the investigations do not require medical expertise, acknowledged that it failed to publish any bulletins on 30 enforcement actions since 2016 but said it has recently fixed the problem.

The medical commission’s delayed or or nonexistent notifications encompass a range of alleged doctor misconduct.

Advertisement

Kareematulai Arogundade was accused in August of failing to undergo a mental examination that the commission required. The physician, who did not respond when contacted by KUOW and ProPublica by email and phone, first appeared more than 120 days later in the commission’s winter newsletter after his license was indefinitely suspended.

Sophie Gomez was accused in October of failing to respond to a request for information about a complaint filed with the board, and her license was indefinitely suspended in February, after which the commission issued a press release. (Gomez declined to comment when contacted by KUOW and ProPublica.)

The commission did announce charges prior to resolving the case against Jonathan Wynn Hemmert, who oversaw clinical operations at three Washington clinics that used a device called Cryoskin, a temperature-controlled wand that manufacturers say can remove unwanted fat cells when it’s rubbed against a patient’s skin.

The state agency said clinic staffers had clients sign a personal injury waiver, which the commission said was unenforceable, against public policy and deceptive and dishonest. The commission said he also failed to ensure the device was approved by the Food and Drug Administration and failed to supervise staff using the device on patients.

Hemmert signed a settlement agreeing to address the concerns, but the commission in November filed formal allegations that he had breached it. (Hemmert did not respond when asked to comment on the allegations, which have not yet been adjudicated.)

Advertisement

A press release was posted to the commission’s website in March, 112 days after he was charged with breaching the settlement. Two months after that, a listserv notice went out.

‘A right to know’

The 1984 Washington state law that requires public notification was passed as part of the Uniform Disciplinary Act, a set of guidelines for state medical boards and commissions that license providers and investigate complaints.

Among the sponsors was then-state legislator Mike Kreidler, a Democrat and optometrist who served 16 years in the Legislature and 24 as insurance commissioner.

Kreidler said he doesn’t recall the details of how the 1984 law came together. But looking back at it, Kreidler, now 82, said he believes the public notification requirement fulfilled an important function. He said to get to the point where the commission completes an investigation and files charges means a complaint has enough evidence behind it to proceed toward disciplinary action.

“They’re not going to be frivolous in any fashion, and therefore the public certainly does have a right to know,” he said.

Advertisement

‘Such a violation’: Patients of former UW doctor accused of fertility fraud grapple with uncertainty, tough choices

Presented with KUOW and ProPublica’s findings, people who support policies favoring disclosure to patients said the commission’s interpretation of the 1984 notification law falls short.

Patricia Kelmar, senior director of healthcare campaigns at PIRG, a nonprofit advocacy organization for consumers, said the commission should be expansive in discharging its duty to notify the public as the law requires, contacting not only reporters but also a doctor’s current and former patients.

“ We should not be hoping that we stumble across the information that’s going to protect us from a doctor who’s dangerous,” Kelmar said.

Lisa McGiffert, patient safety activist with the Patient Safety Action Network, said the commission’s frequent delay in notifying the public does not fulfill the spirit of Washington’s law, which in her interpretation necessitates a quick release of information.

Advertisement

“ There’s nothing preventing Washington state from saying these have to be sent out to the news media within four or five working days,” McGiffert said.

Local media outlets have paid attention in the occasional cases where the medical commission has announced an action via the press release section of its website. A review of news releases about in-state doctors accused of conduct unrelated to their mental health shows that, more often than not, relevant media outlets have published stories afterward.

A news tip to a local journalist, not the commission’s email list, prompted the first media coverage of the case against Mulholland last June — nearly two months after the commission formally charged the gynecologist with misconduct involving three patients.

The woman who later accused Mulholland of performing an uncomfortable rectal exam and saying her vagina looked nice said the actions occurred at an appointment on May 1, 2025, or just days after the commission filed formal allegations.

The woman told KUOW and ProPublica that she was angry that she heard no news about the commission’s existing allegations before she saw Mulholland.

Advertisement

“I’d never heard anything bad about him,” she said in an interview with KUOW and ProPublica.

Had she known, she wouldn’t have gone, she said.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Washington

Judge tosses Trump Media’s $3.8 billion defamation suit against The Washington Post | CNN Business

Published

on

Judge tosses Trump Media’s .8 billion defamation suit against The Washington Post | CNN Business


Another one of President Donald Trump’s lawsuits against a news organization has fizzled out.

This time, it is a defamation lawsuit that the Trump Media and Technology Group brought against The Washington Post in 2023 over a story titled “Trust linked to porn-friendly bank could gain a stake in Trump’s Truth Social.”

A federal judge in Florida has thrown out the suit, saying that Trump Media “failed to present evidence that would allow a jury to find by clear and convincing evidence” that The Post “published the allegedly defamatory statements with actual malice.”

US District Judge Thomas Barber’s conclusion came during the summary judgment phase of the case, when a judge can evaluate evidence and make a determination before proceeding to trial.

Advertisement

The Post’s lawyers argued that Trump Media could not prove “actual malice,” the high legal standard that public figures must meet to prevail in a defamation case. It means that the defendant either knew a claim was false or displayed “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

The Post’s reporter who wrote the story in question, Drew Harwell, “thoroughly investigated” the subject and “had confidence in the article’s accuracy at the time of publication,” the newspaper’s lawyers wrote.

In a summary docket entry last week, first reported by Reason magazine, Barber sided with the Post. He said he would issue a full opinion later.

The Post itself reported on the legal victory on Tuesday. “We are pleased with the court’s decision and look forward to reviewing its written order upon release,” a spokesperson told CNN.

A spokesperson for Trump Media did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment, but the company told The Post, “We believe a jury should decide whether these falsehoods were actionable and will evaluate whether to appeal last week’s ruling in due course. We will also continue to hold the media accountable.”

Advertisement

Trump Media positions itself as an opponent of, and an alternative to, traditional tech and media companies. It is best known for operating Truth Social, a relatively small social network favored by the president.

The publicly traded company has been losing money for years; it made less than $1 million in revenue in the first quarter of this year, according to public filings.

The company has repeatedly filed lawsuits over news coverage it deemed false. A defamation lawsuit against The Guardian and other defendants was thrown out by a different Florida judge last November. Trump Media initially filed an amended complaint, but then dropped the matter altogether in April.

Trump Media’s suit against the Post accused the newspaper of a “conspiracy” to harm the company and sought $3.8 billion in damages.

The lawsuit lawyers succeeded in narrowing the case considerably and asserted that Truth Media could not satisfy the “heavy burden” of the actual malice standard.

Advertisement

In May, while awaiting the judge’s ruling, The Post published a correction to the 2023 story stating that “discovery in the ongoing litigation has established” that two assertions in the story were incorrect. But the correction emphasized that the assertions were “based on The Post’s reporting at the time of publication.”

Trump and his businesses have a long history of getting publicity from lawsuits, only to see judges later throw them out.

In April, a federal judge dismissed Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on a lewd birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein bearing his name. Trump refiled that suit in May. He also has pending litigation against the BBC, The New York Times and the Des Moines Register.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending