James H. Eskridge v. Darlene M. Townsend, Ph.d ( 2013 )

FILED
SEPT. 17,2013
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
W A State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
JAMES HENRY ESKRIDGE, II & ) No. 30405-1-111
AMY DAWN ESKRIDGE, )
)
Respondents, )
)
v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
DARLENE A. TOWNSEND, PhD, )
)
Appellant. )
KULIK, J. - James and Amy Eskridge filed a negligence suit against Darlene.
Townsend, PhD, a marriage and family therapist, alleging that she violated the standard
of care in her counseling of them. Part oftheir claim included communications by Dr.
Townsend to Child Protective Services (CPS), the Washington State Bar Association
(WSBA), the Spokane Police Department, and the Department of Health (DOH). Three
days before trial in a reply brief, Dr. Townsend raised an immunity defense under
RCW 4.24.510, the anti-SLAPp l statute, asserting that the statute covered all ofthese
communications. The trial court ruled that Dr. Townsend waived the defense because she
1 Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
No.30405-I-III
Eskridge v. Townsend
failed to raise it during two years of litigation. The jury returned a verdict in favor the
Eskridges. Dr. Townsend appeals, contending the trial court erred in (1) concluding that
she waived the anti-SLAPP defense and (2) allowing hearsay testimony. She also alleges
instructional error. We agree with the trial court that Dr. Townsend waived the anti-
SLAPP defense, that the hearsay was properly admitted, and we conclude that the
instructional error was not objected to and is not properly before this court. Accordingly,
we affirm.
FACTS
Mr. Eskridge began therapy as Dr. Townsend's individual client in August 2006
for follow-up care after inpatient treatment for alcohol dependency and depression. After
a few appointments, Dr. Townsend requested that Ms. Eskridge also begin separate,
individual counseling with her. Within a few weeks of this parallel individual therapy,
Dr. Townsend concluded that Mr. Eskridge was a sex addict. She claimed that Mr.
Eskridge's sexual issues were a predominant theme ~~in ... almost every [counseling]
session." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 244. But when she reviewed her notes she
agreed that sex or intimacy issues were referenced in only about five of their sessions.
Dr. Townsend also admitted the need to use great care in diagnosing sex addiction,
using standardized screening instruments and diagnostic criteria. She testified that
2
No. 30405-1-III
Eskridge v. Townsend
"[e]very patient that comes in with a sexual addiction statement of need" is given 10
screening questions and a 30-page document to fill out. RP at 225. Dr. Townsend
admitted administering none of those tests to Mr. Eskridge prior to her reaching her
conclusion that he was a sex addict.
Dr. Townsend agreed that the standard of care required her not to disclose patient
confidences without express written authorization or waiver. Dr. Townsend admitted that
she disclosed to Ms. Eskridge that Mr. Eskridge could not accept "his sexual addiction
diagnosis." RP at 241. Dr. Townsend did not have Mr. Eskridge's pennission to disclose
those opinions.
In other private sessions with Ms. Eskridge, Dr. Townsend disclosed additional
confidences learned from Mr. Eskridge in his therapy, including Mr. Eskridge's
frustrations over Ms. Eskridge's work schedule. Dr. Townsend told Ms. Eskridge that
she had concluded that Mr. Eskridge was not doing enough to recover from alcohol
dependency, and that his current Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor was too much like Mr.
Eskridge's father and needed to be replaced. Ms. Eskridge would return home from these
sessions and confront Mr. Eskridge with the infonnation she obtained from Dr.
Townsend. This would cause Mr. Eskridge to get extremely frustrated.
3
No. 30405-I-III
Eskridge v. Townsend
Dr. Townsend presided over a couple ofjoint counseling sessions with Mr. and
Ms. Eskridge. Dr. Townsend admitted the standard of care required she maintain
individual confidentiality during group and couple's counseling, absent express written
permission for disclosure. During one joint session, Dr. Townsend turned to Ms.
Eskridge and disclosed her opinion that Mr. Eskridge had borderline personality disorder.
Dr. Townsend testified that she had not received Mr. Eskridge's consent to disclose such
an OpInIOn.
Ms. Eskridge testified that several months into counseling, Dr. Townsend told her
that her husband needed intensive in-patient treatment for sex addicts in Mississippi. Ms.
Eskridge testified that Dr. Townsend instructed her to tell Mr. Eskridge that the program
was for depression and to hide the sexual addiction component because he would
probably not go. Mr. Eskridge said that he would go but later learned the nature of the
program during a preadmission telephone interview with the facility.
Mr. Eskridge testified that on July 30, 2007, he confronted Dr. Townsend about
her disclosures. Mr. Eskridge told Dr. Townsend that he wanted to terminate therapy.
But she told him that she would terminate counseling the Eskridges' two sons. Mr.
Eskridge said he agreed to continue making appointments, but he would no longer engage
in substantive discussions with Dr. Townsend.
4
No. 30405-1-II1
Eskridge v. Townsend
Reports to CPS
One month later, Dr. Townsend reported the Eskridges to CPS. At trial, Dr.
Townsend testified her CPS report was based on statements Mr. Eskridge made in a
counseling session on July 30,2007. Dr. Townsend's chart notes reflected:
He says he just loves his boys so much and misses Amy so much that he's
feeling lonely. Says the nights are difficult in missing Amy so he has begun
crawling into beds with the boys and just holding then close. Says they
wake up and ask [him] what is wrong. I expressed concern over this
inappropriate substitution of the boys for Amy, but he protests that it's okay
because he loves them so much.
RP at 243.
Dr. Townsend said that this statement immediately convinced her that Mr.
Eskridge was sexually molesting his children and that she was required to report to CPS.
Dr. Townsend testified she waited one month to make a report to CPS because Ms.
Eskridge would be out of town that entire month and the boys needed her when the report
was made. Dr. Townsend waited even though this possibly meant exposing the boys to
more sexual abuse during that time.
Dr. Townsend agreed to see Ms. Eskridge on August 29,2007, and told her that
day that she was reporting Mr. Eskridge to CPS. Dr. Townsend explained that rules of
confidentiality prevented her from disclosing reasons for the report but she did state,
"nothing happened with their clothes off." RP at 120.
5
No.30405-1-III
Eskridge v. Townsend
Testimony o{CPS Investigator Denise Guffin
Ms. Guffin, a CPS investigator, testified regarding her investigation of Dr.
Townsend's complaint to CPS. She testified that she had investigated more than 400
separate reports for CPS and that she held a master's degree in social work. She
described the steps she followed under CPS procedure.
Ms. Guffin testified that Dr. Townsend reported to CPS "that the children are
terrified of the father," and that Mr. Eskridge had reported to her (Dr. Townsend)
"spanking the children," "hit[ting] the kids and throw[ing] them in the room for the
afternoon." RP at 596. Dr. Townsend reported that she was concerned for the boys
because the dad was a stay-at-home dad with the mother traveling and often gone for a
week at a time. Ms. Guffin testified that Dr. Townsend reported "that [J.E.] told her that
dad spanked him so much he was bleeding," and that the boys had told her that a long
time ago one of the boys "was trying to get away from dad's spanking and dad hit him in
the head and it required stitches." RP at 596. Ms. Guffin also testified that Dr. Townsend
reported that Mr. Eskridge was a "sex addict." RP at 597.
Dr. Townsend told the CPS intake person that Mr. Eskridge "is a dry alcoholic and
a sex addict." RP at 597. Ms. Guffin contacted the Eskridge children's elementary
school and arranged with school officials to interview the children there. Both sons said
6
No. 30405-1-111
Eskridge v. Townsend
they were not afraid of their father. Ms. Guffin then made an unannounced visit of the
Eskridge home, bedrooms and other areas. During that visit, the Eskridges explained that
their youngest son, who was in kindergarten at the time, often got into bed with both of
them due to breathing problems.
Ms. Guffin testified that during one of several lengthy conversations, Dr.
Townsend acknowledged that Mr. Eskridge '" didn't tell me that he was doing fondling,
but 1 can't imagine he isn't.'" RP at 627-28. Dr. Townsend also reported that Mr.
Eskridge was holding his sons "with a full body hug" and "then [Dr. Townsend] said to
me, '[t]his is getting close to molestation.'" RP at 617.
Ms. Guffin testified in response to a question from defense counsel that, "after a
complete investigation, 1 found the allegations to be unfounded." RP at 648. Ms. Guffin
continued that: "I do not believe, based on my professional investigation and my
professional opinion, that Dr. Townsend was concerned enough to report these
allegations." RP at 649.
Reports to Third Parties
After CPS deemed Dr. Townsend's report unfounded, Dr. Townsend wrote a letter
to the Eskridges' insurance company informing them that she was required to report Mr.
7
No.30405-1-III
Eskridge v. Townsend
Eskridge to CPS "'based on his description of the manner in which he was sexually
molesting his children.'" RP at 294, Ex. 7.
The Eskridges retained Mr. Eskridge's brother, an attorney, for legal assistance.
Dr. Townsend filed a grievance with the WSBA, alleging it was a conflict of interest for
an attorney to represent his own brother. In correspondence to the WSBA in June 2008,
months after her report to CPS had been deemed unfounded, Dr. Townsend wrote the
following about Mr. Eskridge, "'I was required to report to DSHS Child Protective
Services the fact that Mr. James Eskridge had described to me, in clear detail, the
methods by which he was sexually molesting the two young sons of Amy and James.'"
RP at 294, Ex. 6.
Dr. Townsend also sent correspondence to the Spokane Police Department in
which she described Mr. Eskridge as '" an alcoholic sex addict with severe anger
management problems, [who] had described to me his sexual abuse of his two sons.'"
RP at 293, Ex. 5.
The Eskridges filed a complaint with the Washington DOH. Dr. Townsend wrote
that Mr. Eskridge "has previously informed [me] that he has sexually molested [his]
sons." RP at 292, Ex. 4.
8
No.30405-1-III
Eskridge v. Townsend
The Eskridges separated in late 2010 and divorced in 2011. Their expert, Dr. Jon
Conte, testified that Dr. Townsend did not meet the standard of care and that her
"misdiagnosis and the application of wrong therapeutic errors ... is the proximate cause
for the destruction of their marriage." RP at 435. As to Dr. Townsend's CPS report, he
testified, "I don't think any reasonable professional would believe that a father who is
hugging a child is sexually aggressive or is sexually dangerous." RP at 424-25. Dr.
Conte further testified that both Mr. and Ms. Eskridge suffered additional psychological
harm such as distrust, anxiety, anger, and frustration as a result of Dr. Townsend's
standard of care violation.
PROCEDURAL FACTS
The Eskridges filed a health care malpractice suit on June 5, 2009. In their
amended complaint filed on November 16,2009, they detailed the first four medical
malpractice claims, alleging breach of the standard of care based on breaches of
confidentiality, conflicts of interest, inappropriate expansion of Mr. Eskridge's treatment
for sexual addiction, failure to properly terminate treatment in a professional way, and
filing a retaliatory complaint with CPS. The fifth through eighth counts alleged Dr.
Townsend improperly withheld records from the Eskridges, improper billing, violation of
the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW, and defamation and slander based on
9
No. 30405~I~III
Eskridge v. Townsend
Dr. Townsend's communications with CPS and the WSBA. Dr. Townsend's answer
asserted "statutory immunity for the acts and omissions alleged within the Complaint."
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 160.
On December 17,2010, the trial court granted Dr. Townsend's motion for
summary judgment as to claims five through eight, finding the claims "subsumed in
RCW 7.70 and that the Consumer Protection Act is not available for plaintiffs alleging
personal injuries due to medical negligence." CP at 11.
Thereafter, the Eskridges asked Dr. Townsend for clarification regarding her
immunity defense:
With regard to your claim that you have immunity for the acts complained
of by Plaintiffs in their Amended Complaint, please identify any and all
such acts for which you contend immunity applies, and please identify and
describe each material fact which you contend supports your claim of
immunity.
CP at 52.
Dr. Townsend responded:
Pursuant to various state statutes, Dr. Townsend is immune from civil
liability for making her good faith report to Child Protective Services which
was required by law. See RCW 26.44.060.[2]
2 RCW 26.44.060(l)(a) provides, in part:
[A]ny person participating in good faith in the making ofa report pursuant
to this chapter or testifying as to alleged child abuse or neglect in a judicial
proceeding shall in doing so be immune from any liability arising out of
10
No.30405-1-II1
Eskridge v. Townsend
CP at 52.
The Eskridges then asked Dr. Townsend to provide copies of all documents
pertaining to her answer. She responded, "See RCW 26.44.060." CP at 53.
On a Friday afternoon, three days before trial was scheduled to begin
the following Monday, Dr. Townsend claimed immunity under the anti-SLAPP statute,
RCW 4.24.510,3 in a reply brief. She asserted that all of her communications, with the
exception of the insurance company, were covered by the statute as they were all to
branches of government or agencies of the local government. On the morning of trial, the
Eskridges moved the court for an order precluding Dr. Townsend from invoking the anti-
SLAPP statute, contending that she had waived the defense due to her failure over months
of litigation to assert it. They also argued that the defense did not apply to claims
involving reporting to CPS because reports to CPS are governed by RCW 26.44.060,
which unlike RCW 4.24.510, require good faith reporting in order to afford immunity.
such reporting or testifying under any law of this state or its political
subdivisions.
3 RCW 4.24.510 provides in part:
A person who communicates a complaint or information to any branch or
agency of federal, state, or local government ... is immune from civil
liability for claims based upon the communication to the agency or
organization regarding any matter reasonably of concern to that agency or
organization.... Statutory damages may be denied if the court finds that
the complaint or information was communicated in bad faith.
11
No.30405-1-III
Eskridge v. Townsend
The trial court concluded that Dr. Townsend waived the defense, noting that she
failed to raise the defense during months of litigation, despite multiple opportunities to do
so. Alternatively, the court found that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply to the case,
reasoning in part that "the SLAPP statute does not trump, if you will, the good faith
reporting requirement ofRCW 26.44.030." RP at 973.
The jury found Dr. Townsend negligent in her counseling and treatment of the
Eskridges. Dr. Townsend appeals.
ANALYSIS
Waiver. The central issue is whether the trial court erred by striking Dr.
Townsend's affirmative defense of immunity under the anti-SLAPP statute,
RCW 4.24.510.
A trial court's ruling on a motion to strike an affirmative defense is reviewed for
an abuse of discretion. Oltman v. Holland Am. Line USA, Inc., 163 Wn.2d 236, 244, 178
P.3d 981 (2008). A trial court abuses its discretion when the ruling is manifestly
unreasonable or based upon untenable grounds or reasons. Veit v. Burlington N. Santa Fe
Corp., 171 Wn.2d 88, 99, 249 PJd 607 (2011) (quoting Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors, 168
Wn.2d 664,668-69,230 PJd 583 (2010)). A trial court's discretionary ruling is
unreasonable or based upon untenable grounds when it is based on an error of law. Wash.
12
No. 30405-1-II1
Eskridge v. Townsend
State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass 'n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299, 339, 858 P.2d 1054(1993). This court reviews a trial court's legal conclusions de novo. Likewise, "[a]
court's decision is manifestly unreasonable if it is outside the range of acceptable choices,
given the facts[;] it is based on untenable grounds if the factual findings are unsupported
by the record." In re Marriage o/Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39, 47, 940 P.2d 1362 (1997).
Washington courts recognize that in certain cases the common law doctrine of
waiver will preclude a defendant from raising an affirmative defense. Lybbert v. Grant
County, 141 Wn.2d 29,38, 1 P.3d 1124 (2000). Our Supreme Court has held that waiver
of affirmative defenses can occur in two ways: if assertion of the defense is inconsistent
with the defendant's prior behavior or if the defendant has been dilatory in raising the
defense. Lybbert, 141 Wn.2d at38-39; King v. Snohomish County, 146 Wn.2d 420, 424,
47 P.3d 563 (2002). The doctrine of waiver is "designed to prevent a defendant from
ambushing a plaintiff during litigation either through delay in asserting a defense or
misdirecting the plaintiff away from a defense for tactical advantage." King, 146 Wn.2d
at 424 (citing Lybbert, 141 Wn.2d at 40). The doctrine is also intended to encourage the
assertion of procedural defenses "before any significant expenditures of time and money
[have] occurred." Id. at 426.
13
No.30405-1-II1
Eskridge v. Townsend
Here, the trial court ruled that Dr. Townsend waived the defense based on Dr.
Townsend's failure to assert the defense until just before trial:
Clearly if at any time initially this issue might not come up, clearly I would
think after the deposition on February 24th where some of these documents
were used, that that would be notice to the defendant that these are the type
of documents that the plaintiff is going to ask that the court to [sic] consider
for evidentiary purposes. The interrogatories and requests for production
that both counsel submitted clearly are only limited in terms of statutory
citation to RCW 26.44. There is a general language about other statutes,
but there is no attempt to identifY the SLAPP statute [.] It is not identified in
any way shape or form that the defense is relying on to exclude various
items of evidence.
RP at 971-72.
The court also noted that the defense was not raised at the pretrial meeting or in the
trial management report: "This is the kind of issue I would expect to be a motion on the
applicability of an immunity statute prior to trial and not just in the form of a motion in
limine." RP at 972.
Dr. Townsend contends that the trial court's findings do not support a waiver of
immunity under the anti-SLAPP statute. She claims that at "all relevant times throughout
the litigation," she asserted her statutory immunity. Appellant's Br. at 14. Specifically,
she points to her answers to interrogatories, in which she stated that she was entitled to
statutory immunity based on "various state statutes." CP at 52,64. She argues that she
was not required to specifY the anti-SLAPP statute because the Eskridges' interrogatory
14
No.30405-1-III
Eskridge v. Townsend
44did not ask Dr. Townsend to identify the statutes upon which she founded her claim of
immunity." Appellant's Br. at 16.
The Eskridges counter that Dr. Townsend's failure to raise the defense over the
course of close to two years of litigation constituted a waiver of anti-SLAPP immunity,
pointing out that when asked to specify each "material fact" supporting her claim of
immunity, Dr. Townsend simply cited RCW 26.44.060, but failed to identify any facts
material to a defense under the anti-SLAPP statute. They contend that her response and
actions prior to trial directed them away from all immunity provisions other than
RCW 26.44.060, which resulted in the kind of prejudicial unfair surprise that the waiver
doctrine is designed to curtail. The Eskridges primarily rely on Lybbert and King in
support of their argument.
In Lybbert, the plaintiffs sued Grant County but mistakenly did not effect proper
service. For the next nine months, the county appeared and acted as though it was
preparing to litigate the merits of the case without mentioning any problem with the
sufficiency of the service of process. Through interrogatories, the Lybberts asked the
county if service would be an issue. The county did not respond. After the statute of
limitations had run, the county answered the Lybberts' complaint and raised the issue of
insufficient service. The court reversed, noting that if the county had timely responded to
15
No.30405-I-II1
Eskridge v. Townsend
the interrogatories, the Lybberts would have had time to cure the defective service.
Lybbert, 141 Wn.2d at 42. The court held that the county thus waived its defense by
acting in an inconsistent and dilatory manner. Id. at 44-45.
Similarly, in King, parents filed a complaint against Snohomish County after their
child was injured in a county park. One month after the complaint was filed, the county
answered and raised 11 affirmative defenses, including failure to comply with claim filing
requirements. King, 146 Wn.2d at 423. However, during three years of litigation and
discovery, which included motions for summary judgment, the defense did not raise the
issue of defective notice. When the plaintiffs asked the county in an interrogatory what
defenses it intended to raise, the county referred to the list of defenses in its answer. Id.The county did not raise the defense again until three days before trial when it moved to
dismiss for failure to comply with the notice claim provisions. Id. The trial court denied
the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that although the county was not
dilatory in asserting the defense in its answer, all parties to the case had engaged in costly
and lengthy discovery and litigation "only to have the case decided on procedural grounds
completely unrelated to the discovery in which they were engaged" and that the defense
could have been disposed of early in the litigation prior to these expenditures and at a
time when the defect could have been remedied. Id. at 426.
16
No. 30405-1-111
Eskridge v. Townsend
The facts of these cases are similar to the case at hand. As the Eskridges correctly
note, Dr. Townsend's behavior during the two years before trial was wholly inconsistent
with her assertion of an anti-SLAPP immunity defense. In 2009, in her "Answer and
Statement of Affirmative Defenses," Dr. Townsend simply stated that she was "en~itled to
statutory immunity for the acts and omissions alleged within the Complaint." CP at 160.
When asked in January 2011 to identify the "material facts" that supported her general
claim of immunity, Dr. Townsend did not cite the anti~SLAPP statute or make any
reference to the material facts she would have to establish to support anti-SLAPP
immunity (that she had communicated matters to an agency that were reasonably of
concern to that agency); instead, she specifically directed the Eskridges to
RCW 26.44.060, which she alleged protected her "good faith report to Child Protective
Services." CP at 52. And when asked for documents pertaining to her answer, she again
referenced RCW 26.44.060 without any mention of the anti-SLAPP statute. Additionally,
in 2010, the parties filed a stipulation that "[t]here shall be no restrictions upon the use of
the DSHS records ... for purposes of litigating the ... matter." CP at 191. This included
the CPS report. By entering into an agreement that allowed the unrestricted use of such
information, Dr. Townsend acted inconsistently with an assertion of immunity based on
such information.
17
No. 30405-I-III
Eskridge v. Townsend
The court took special notice of Dr. Townsend's failure to claim SLAPP immunity
during her deposition. In her February 2011 deposition, Dr. Townsend was questioned
extensively about her communications with the WSBA, the DOH, and CPS; however, she
never claimed immunity in reference to those communications under the anti-SLAPP
statute. In May 2011, the Eskridges announced that they would be offering evidence at
trial of Dr. Townsend's communications with the police, DSHS, and CPS. Dr. Townsend
objected under ER 801 and ER 904, but did not raise an immunity defense under the anti-
SLAPP statute.
Another fact of particular significance to the court was Dr. Townsend's failure to
raise an anti-SLAPP immunity defense in the June 9, 2011 trial management joint report.
In that report, the parties stated that only two issues were in dispute: whether Dr.
Townsend violated the standard of care and whether an act or omission damaged the
Eskridges. Conspicuously lacking is any reference to the applicability of anti-SLAPP
immunity. Thus, two years into the litigation, Dr. Townsend acted as though she was
prepared to litigate the merits of the claim.
On September 14, 2011, just a week and one-half before trial, Dr. Townsend filed
a trial brief without mentioning anti-SLAPP immunity. In her motions in limine filed the
same day, she reiterated her objection to the use of her CPS, DSHS, and WSBA
18
No.30405-1-III
Eskridge v. Townsend
communications on hearsay grounds. Again, there was no reference to RCW 4.24.510
immunity. Finally, she did not request any jury instructions regarding the defense. In
view of this record, the court's findings are amply supported, and they, in tum, support its
conclusion that Dr. Townsend waived anti-SLAPP immunity.
Despite this record, Dr. Townsend contends that she cannot be deemed to have
waived the anti-SLAPP defense because the Eskridges cannot establish prejudice as a
result of the delay in her assertion of the defense. Citing Oltman, Dr. Townsend argues
that "the essential point of King and its predecessor, Lybbert ... was that the plaintiff
would suffer prejudice from its adversary's conduct if waiver were not applied; absent
such prejudice, there is no occasion to apply the waiver doctrine." Appellant's Br. at 20.
She contends that in this case because the communications at issue were inadmissible
under immunity statutes, the Eskridges suffered no prejudice.
Dr. Townsend misstates the holding in Oltman. In that case, the issue before the
court was whether the defendant waived an affirmative defense raised in an answer that
was filed 11 days beyond the 20-day period allowed by court rule. Oltman, 163 Wn.2d at
243. The plaintiffs asked the court to hold that "affirmative defenses are waived if they
are asserted in an untimely answer and the late assertion causes actual prejudice to the
plaintiff." Id. The plaintiffs asserted that they were prejudiced because if the defendant's
19
No.30405-1-II1
Eskridge v. Townsend
defense had been timely raised, they would have had time to refile their complaint in
federal court. However, contrary to Dr. Townsend's contention, the Oltman court
declined to address whether an affirmative defense raised in an untimely answer is only
waived if the delay causes actual prejudice, finding that no prejudice was established and
therefore the issue did not need to be addressed. Id. at 246-47.
As discussed, Washington cases consistently note that the waiver doctrine is
designed to avoid delays, prevent a defendant from misdirecting a plaintiff from a defense
or masking a defense, and prevent an unnecessary waste of the parties' time and
resources. King, 146 Wn.2d at 424; Lybbert, 141 Wn.2d at 40. The Lybbert court stated,
"Our holding today merely underscores the importance of preventing the litigation
process from being inhibited by inconsistent or dilatory conduct on the part of litigants."
Lybbert, 141 Wn.2d at 40. Thus, a defendant can be deemed to have waived a defense
when his or her conduct substantially undermines the foregoing policies.
Here, the parties litigated this case for close to two years before Dr. Townsend
raised the anti-SLAPP defense, despite multiple opportunities for her to do so. Even if
we deem Dr. Townsend's citation to "various state statutes" sufficient notice of her intent
to raise anti-SLAPP immunity, her actions during two years of litigation belie any intent
to use the defense. Dr. Townsend's assertion of the defense at the eleventh hour, after
20
No.30405-I-III
Eskridge v. Townsend
behaving throughout the litigation in a manner inconsistent with that defense, thwarts the
very policies the waiver doctrine promotes. Dr. Townsend allowed the Eskridges to
spend time and money developing a theory of the case largely premised on her
communications to government agencies. Under well-settled precedent, her failure to
pursue this affirmative defense while participating in the litigation served as a waiver of
the defense.
Dr. Townsend also asserts that the court erred in concluding that RCW 4.24.510
does not apply to cases that involve CPS reporting. 4 Given our disposition of the waiver
issue, we need not address this contention.
The trial court did not err in concluding that Dr. Townsend waived the anti-SLAPP
defense.
Hearsay Testimony and Comment on Witness Credibility. Dr. Townsend next
asserts that Ms. Guffin's testimony about statements made to her by the Eskridges and
their children should have been excluded because they were inadmissible hearsay. Dr.
Townsend also asserts for the first time on appeal that Ms. Guffin improperly commented
on the credibility of Dr. Townsend and the Eskridge children. We review a trial court's
4 The Eskridges move to strike portions of Dr. Townsend's brief and the appendix
on the basis that they refer to matters not in the record. The appendix is not part of the
record and is stricken. See RAP lOJ(a)(8). The reference to the article at page 26 of Dr.
21
No. 30405-1-III
Eskridge v. Townsend
evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. Hoglund v. Meeks, l39 Wn. App. 854, 875,
170 P.3d 37 (2007). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly
unreasonable or based upon untenable grounds. Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wn.2d
677,684, l32 P.3d 115 (2006) (quoting Associated Mortg. Investors v. G.P. Kent Constr.
Co., 15 Wn. App. 223,229,548 P.2d 558 (1976)).
At the outset, we note that Dr. Townsend is precluded from arguing that Ms.
Guffin improperly commented on witness credibility because she failed to make a specific
evidentiary objection below. "A party may only assign error in the appellate court on the
specific ground of the evidentiary objection made at trial." State v. Koepke, 47 Wn. App.
897,911, 738 P.2d 295 (1987). Dr. Townsend replies that the error is fully reviewable
because the Eskridges violated a court order prohibiting witnesses from commenting on
the credibility of other witnesses.
Before trial, the trial court cautioned counsel that "[n]o witness is entitled to
comment on the credibility of any witness whether they are an expert or a lay person ....
[I]f anybody attempts to do it whether they have disclosed that opinion or not I will
sustain an objection." RP at 953-54. As indicated, Dr. Townsend failed to object to Ms.
Guffin's alleged comments on the credibility of witnesses, which precludes our review
Townsend's brief is stricken as well.
22
No.30405-I-III
Eskridge v. Townsend
under RAP 2.5(a). Additionally, any review of the alleged error is compromised by Dr.
Townsend's failure to identifY the objectionable testimony at issue. Although Dr.
Townsend cites numerous pages of record, she fails to point to specific testimony that
constitutes a comment on the credibility of the Eskridge children or Dr. Townsend.
Because of her failure to discuss her citations to the record with any particularity, we do
not address her claim. It is not the function of an appellate court "to comb the record with
a view toward constructing arguments for counsel." In re Estate 0/ Lint, 135 Wn.2d 518,
532,957 P.2d 755 (1998); see RAP 10.3(a)(6).
As to the hearsay issue, Dr. Townsend contends that the court erred in allowing
Ms. Guffin to testifY about statements made to her by the Eskridges and their children.
However, again Dr. Townsend fails to cite to any authority to support her position and her
references to the record are not discussed with particularity. Her argument is essentially
limited to one conclusory sentence in which she states, "These statements were hearsay,
subject to no exception identified by the Eskridges or the trial court, and should not have
been admitted." Appellant's Br. at 34. Given the inadequacy of Dr. Townsend's
briefing, we do not address this issue. See RAP 10.3(a)(6); RAP lOA. "Passing
treatment of an issue or lack of reasoned argument is insufficient to merit judicial
consideration." Holland v. City o/Tacoma, 90 Wn. App. 533, 538, 954 P.2d 290 (1998).
23
No. 30405-1-111
Eskridge v. Townsend
Even if we address the issue on its merits, Dr. Townsend's argument fails.
Hearsay is "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifYing at the trial
or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." ER 801(c).
Here, Ms. Guffin's testimony relating to what the Eskridges and their children told to her
during her investigation was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, it
was offered to show the effect of the statements upon Ms. Guffin in determining whether
Dr. Townsend's complaint to CPS was founded. Thus, the statements were offered for
their "effect upon the hearer," which means that they were not hearsay. 5B KARL B.
TEGLAND, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: EVIDENCE LAW & PRACTICE § 801.11, at 346 (5th
ed. 2007); 5C TEGLAND, supra § 803.15 at 48. The trial court therefore did not err by
admitting the testimony.
Jury Instruction. Finally, Dr. Townsend contends that the trial court improperly
instructed the jury that a person is immune from liability for making a report to CPS as
long as the report is made no longer than 48 hours after the person learned of the
suspected abuse. She contends that because the trial court earlier ruled against the legal
proposition contained in the instruction, it erred in giving an instruction that contradicted
this earlier ruling. The Eskridges respond that the jury instruction at issue is the law of
the case because Dr. Townsend failed to object to the instruction below.
24
No.30405-1-III
Eskridge v. Townsend
The instruction at issue provided that "[a] person who makes a report to Child
Protective Services is immune from liability for that report if ... the report is made at the
first opportunity, but in no case longer than forty-eight (48) hours after there is reasonable
cause to believe that the child has suffered abuse or neglect." CP at 111, Instruction 11.
"An appellate court may consider a claimed error in a jury instruction only if the
appellant raised the specific issue by exception at trial." Van Hout v. Celotex Corp., 121
Wn.2d 697, 702, 853 P.2d 908 (1993). A trial court must be apprised of the specific
grounds for objection and given an opportunity to correct any mistakes in time to prevent
an unnecessary retrial. If this does not occur, the appellate court cannot review the
alleged error. Ryan v. Westgard, 12 Wn. App. 500, 510, 530 P.2d 687 (1975). Dr.
Townsend's failure to object to the instruction below precludes our review of the alleged
error.
Dr. Townsend concedes that she did not object to instruction 11, but contends this
court should review the alleged error because she previously argued against the legal
proposition when the Eskridges moved for a directed verdict. Admittedly, the court
denied the Eskridges' motion and ruled that the immunity provision ofRCW 26.44.060 is
not lost when the CPS report is made after 48 hours. Nevertheless, Dr. Townsend fails to
cite any authority for her proposition that the trial court's prior ruling is determinative of
25
No.30405-1-III
Eskridge v. Townsend
error in the instruction. Again, due to inadequate briefing and failure to cite to authority,
we are unable to review the issue. RAP 10.3.
Summary. Dr. Townsend waived the anti-SLAPP defense, the testimony of Ms.
Guffin was properly admitted, and the failure to object to instruction 11 precludes our
review. Accordingly, we affirm.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
Kulik, J.
WE CONCUR:
26