Editorial: Proposal gives administrative law system vital reforms

If a Washington family contests the cutoff of state benefits, its case is heard by an administrative law judge.

If an injured worker is denied workers’ compensation, the case is heard by an ALJ.

Or, as in a notorious 2014 case, if a hospital is denied participation in the new health care marketplace, its case is heard by an ALJ.

Administrative law courts are an important venue for resolving all manner of complaints against the state, and they are busy. ALJs held 69,000 hearings last year.

But they work largely below the radar of the public and the media. A few are housed within the agency that would be affected by their decision, and their findings are subject to an override by the agency head. The potential for compromises of process and outcome are obvious, and it was that 2014 case involving Seattle Children’s Hospital and the Office of Insurance Commissioner that finally attracted the Legislature’s attention.

Sen. Mike Padden, R-Spokane Valley, has introduced SB 6019, which will put more “blind” into administrative justice. It deserves quick legislative approval.

The bill’s most important provisions make decisions final, and clarify what contacts outside the hearing room between judges and parties to the case are appropriate.

In the case involving Seattle Children’s Hospital, Chief Presiding Officer Patricia Petersen complained that an official from the OIC was pressuring her to resolve the case in favor of Commissioner Mike Kreidler, who had determined that Premera and another insurer did not have to include the hospital in their network of health care providers.

Seattle Children’s claimed it alone could provide some services essential to child health, whatever the concern about how its costs might affect pricing of new health care plans.

When Petersen sided with the hospital, Kreidler overruled her. She was placed on leave for leaking her findings to the hospital, and an outside law firm was retained to investigate the alleged misconduct, and her counterclaim that she was acting as a whistleblower. Although the firm found nothing amiss in the unwanted contacts from Kreidler’s office, Petersen in October received a $450,000 settlement in return for her resignation.

Petersen, with 26 years experience, appears to have been a model of judicial independence.

If SB 6019 passes, rulings made by other ALJs will not be subject to review by agency heads. Challenges will have to be taken to county superior courts. They may not be welcome there, but those are the proper venues.

To prevent retaliation by resentful agency heads, the proposed legislation also says adverse rulings should not figure into employee evaluations.

No one testified against SB 6019 on Wednesday, and the Law & Justice Committee chaired by Padden moved the bill on to the Rules Committee on Thursday morning.

Because these cases rarely draw public attention, the need for absolute transparency in the hearings process is that much more important.

Pass the bill.