{"id":2268,"date":"2018-04-08T12:44:26","date_gmt":"2018-04-08T20:44:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trainingpips.com\/?page_id=2268"},"modified":"2019-04-18T03:25:40","modified_gmt":"2019-04-18T11:25:40","slug":"ps-102-chapter-8-article-4-service-on-an-entity-weber-vs-associated-surgeons","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/ps-102-a-course-outline\/ps-102-understanding-case-summaries\/ps-102-chapter-8-an-introduction-to-service-on-an-entity-case-law\/ps-102-chapter-8-article-4-service-on-an-entity-weber-vs-associated-surgeons\/","title":{"rendered":"PS 102 – Chapter 8 – Article 4 – Service on an Entity – Weber vs Associated Surgeons"},"content":{"rendered":"

Weber vs Associated Surgeons<\/span><\/strong>
\n166 Wn.2d 161<\/span><\/strong>
\nNo. 82163-1<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Weber claimed he suffered injuries from the medical attention he received from Dr. Michael Moore in November of 2002. Dr. Moore was a shareholder of defendant<\/a> Associated Surgeons at that time.<\/span><\/p>\n

At the end of 2004, Associated Surgeons stopped providing services. However, although seemingly out of business, it continued as an active corporate entity<\/a>. It was registered with the Secretary of State in Olympia and their corporate information<\/a> displayed on the Secretary of State’s website.<\/span><\/p>\n

The registered agent<\/a> for Associated Surgeons was Dr. Greg Luna. He remained the registered agent<\/a> of record even after the defendant<\/a> entity<\/a> ceased operations.<\/span><\/p>\n

Dr. Luna later became a shareholder and began practicing with the Inland Vascular Institute.<\/span><\/p>\n

In 2006, Weber sought to serve defendant<\/a> Associated Surgeons with a summons and complaint<\/a>. Having discovered Dr. Luna was still the registered agent<\/a> and was now keeping his office at Inland Vascular Institute, sought to have the defendant<\/a> served at their offices.<\/span><\/p>\n

Service was made at Inland Vascular by leaving the papers with that company<\/a>’s practice manager, Carol Braaten.<\/span><\/p>\n

Associated Surgeons moved for summary judgment<\/a> against the plaintiff arguing Braaten was not their employee and that she worked for Inland Vascular. Braaten provided a supporting affidavit<\/a> describing her duties as being in charge<\/a> of Inland Vascular’s day to day administration of practice and personnel. She went on to state that Dr. Luna was a shareholder and practicing physician with Inland Vascular. Finally, she pointed out that she did not schedule Dr. Luna’s appointments and was not routinely involved in any of his medical, diagnostic, or clinical work.<\/span><\/p>\n

Judicial<\/a> History<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The trial court ruled that Braaten was not authorized to accept service on behalf of Dr. Luna and granted the motion<\/a> for summary judgment<\/a> and dismissed the case<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals which supported the trial court’s ruling by holding the service invalid and affirming the dismissal<\/a> of the case<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The plaintiff appealed again to the Supreme Court which overturned the lower courts’ rulings and remanding the case<\/a> back to the trial court for appropriate action<\/a> as an active case<\/a>. The Supreme Court held the service valid and that jurisdiction<\/a> by the trial court had been obtained over the defendant<\/a> in this manner.<\/span><\/p>\n

Specific Issues<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Did service on the registered agent<\/a>’s office manager satisfy the requirements of RCW 4.28.080(9)? Yes<\/span><\/p>\n

Reasoning<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Court first looked to RCW 4.28.080(9) which states:<\/span><\/p>\n

(9) If against a company<\/a> or corporation<\/a> other than those designated in subsections (1) through (8) of this section, to the president or other head of the company<\/a> or corporation<\/a>, the registered agent<\/a>, secretary, cashier or managing agent<\/a> thereof or to the secretary, stenographer or office assistant of the president or other head of the company<\/a> or corporation<\/a>, registered agent<\/a>, secretary, cashier or managing agent<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

This subsection defines how service of obtained upon an entity<\/a> such as the defendant<\/a> in this case<\/a>. The Court concluded that:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The statute does not require the corporation<\/a>’s registered agent<\/a> or the registered agent<\/a>’s secretary, stenographer, or office assistant to work for the defendant<\/a>.<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Dr. Luna was the registered agent<\/a> for the defendant<\/a> Associated Surgeons.<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Ms. Braaten was the manager of the practice where Dr. Luna worked.<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. Dr. Luna was a shareholder physician at the practice.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The fact<\/a> Ms. Braaten did not personally deal with Dr. Luna’s schedule did not preclude here from being his office assistant.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Based on these conclusions the Court ruled the service was in conformance with the statute and, as such, gave the trial court jurisdiction<\/a> over the defendant<\/a> Associated Surgeons.<\/span><\/p>\n

    C4PSE Comment<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    This ruling is of considerable value and interest to professional process servers as it gives greater clarity to 4.28.080(9).<\/span><\/p>\n

    In the past there was some concern as to how strictly the Court might interpret the titles “secretary, stenographer or office assistant.” This concern was heightened as the number of employee position titles expanded. For instance, would the Court accept that an executive assistant was equivalent an office assistant for the purposes of service under this RCW?<\/span><\/p>\n

    Based on this ruling it appears the Court would accept them as equivalent.<\/span><\/p>\n

    This means the Court is looking more to the duties and responsibilities of the secretary or assistant as opposed to the title given the person<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    With this said it is vital to remember that rulings on service issues are fact<\/a> specific and that a change in the facts could result in a different ruling.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Weber vs Associated Surgeons 166 Wn.2d 161 No. 82163-1 Facts Weber claimed he suffered injuries from the medical attention he received from Dr. Michael Moore in November of 2002. Dr. Moore was a shareholder of defendant<\/a> Associated Surgeons at that time. At the end of 2004, Associated Surgeons stopped providing services. However, although seemingly out […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":2260,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2268","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2268"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2268\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2260"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}