$2.35 million settlement against WA DSHS and DOC

The State of Washington will pay a former Mason County woman $2.35 million to settle a lawsuit brought against the Department of Corrections and the Department of Social and Health Services for the State’s failure to protect her from a dangerous sexual predator. Danny Dorosky, Sr., was a convicted child rapist on parole in the fall of 1990 when he began sexually assaulting the victim, who was only 10-years-old at the time.

Corrections officers responsible for monitoring Dorosky while on parole misclassified the 30-year career-criminal as a low-risk offender despite an order from the Parole Board requiring intensive management and supervision because of Dorosky’s prior sex crimes. The Parole Board directed the DOC to conduct regular polygraph examinations to make sure he was not having contact with children. Despite the directive, the DOC never supervised Dorosky and never enforced a single parole condition imposed by the Parole Board.

Left unmonitored, Dorosky ingratiated himself into the victim’s family and eventually moved into her home, where he continuously abused the victim for almost three years.

DSHS’s involvement in the suit stemmed from a report made by school officials to Child Protective Services on the young girl’s behalf suspecting abuse. CPS learned over the course of its investigation that Dorosky was a convicted sex offender living with the girl’s family and that he was suspected of both physically abusing and sexually exploiting the child. However, CPS failed to remove the girl from the abusive environment, never made contact with Dorosky’s parole officers, and simply closed the complaint.

In the summer of 1993, the victim’s father contacted local law enforcement about Dorosky after a visit from his daughter in California. Mason County officials eventually arrested Dorosky, and he was later convicted of child molestation and rape. Dorosky died in 2004.

About two years ago, the victim began looking for answers after her own daughter turned 10-years old. She asked a local law firm that specializes in child abuse cases to help her, not knowing what they would discover. After numerous public records requests, her attorneys realized the State’s agencies did nothing to protect her. According to one of her attorneys, Jason P. Amala, “We told her we would help her find out how it happened, but we had no idea what we would find. It wasn’t until the State said it had no more records on him that we realized it had no records because it did nothing to enforce this sex offender’s parole conditions.” The woman filed suit shortly thereafter, and Dorosky’s parole officer eventually admitted she did nothing to supervise him.

The settlement comes at a time that Attorney General Rob McKenna is touting legislation to immunize the state from liability. Darrell L. Cochran, a Tacoma attorney who represented the woman with Amala, testified against McKenna’s proposals in Olympia this morning. “Our client was raped for almost three years because the state didn’t do its job. The budget is a concern for everyone, but denying justice to people who endure a lifetime of suffering is not the answer. Our communities and children will not be safe if the agencies charged with protecting us are given immunity for not doing their job.”

News coverage

The Olympian - State worker gets $2.35 million in settlement over child sex abuse
KOMO TV – State to pay $2.35M in abuse case settlement (VIDEO)
WSOC TV – WA to pay $2.35M in abuse case settlement

January 5, 2012

Sexual Abuse Statute of Limitations in Washington

Washington has a unique statute of limitations of claims based on childhood sexual abuse.

RCW 4.16.340

Actions based on childhood sexual abuse.

(1) All claims or causes of action based on intentional conduct brought by any person for recovery of damages for injury suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse shall be commenced within the later of the following periods:

(a) Within three years of the act alleged to have caused the injury or condition;

(b) Within three years of the time the victim discovered or reasonably should have discovered that the injury or condition was caused by said act; or

PROVIDED, That the time limit for commencement of an action under this section is tolled for a child until the child reaches the age of eighteen years.

(2) The victim need not establish which act in a series of continuing sexual abuse or exploitation incidents caused the injury complained of, but may compute the date of discovery from the date of discovery of the last act by the same perpetrator which is part of a common scheme or plan of sexual abuse or exploitation.

(3) The knowledge of a custodial parent or guardian shall not be imputed to a person under the age of eighteen years.

(4) For purposes of this section, “child” means a person under the age of eighteen years.

(5) As used in this section, “childhood sexual abuse” means any act committed by the defendant against a complainant who was less than eighteen years of age at the time of the act and which act would have been a violation of chapter 9A.44 RCW or RCW 9.68A.040 or prior laws of similar effect at the time the act was committed.

When the Washington legislature adopted the above statute of limitations in 1991, it made the following findings:

Notes:

“The legislature finds that:

(1) Childhood sexual abuse is a pervasive problem that affects the safety and well-being of many of our citizens.

(2) Childhood sexual abuse is a traumatic experience for the victim causing long-lasting damage.

(3) The victim of childhood sexual abuse may repress the memory of the abuse or be unable to connect the abuse to any injury until after the statute of limitations has run.

(4) The victim of childhood sexual abuse may be unable to understand or make the connection between childhood sexual abuse and emotional harm or damage until many years after the abuse occurs.

(5) Even though victims may be aware of injuries related to the childhood sexual abuse, more serious injuries may be discovered many years later.

(6) The legislature enacted RCW 4.16.340 to clarify the application of the discovery rule to childhood sexual abuse cases. At that time the legislature intended to reverse the Washington supreme court decision in Tyson v. Tyson, 107 Wn.2d 72, 727 P.2d 226 (1986).

It is still the legislature’s intention that Tyson v. Tyson, 107 Wn.2d 72, 727 P.2d 226 (1986) be reversed, as well as the line of cases that state that discovery of any injury whatsoever caused by an act of childhood sexual abuse commences the statute of limitations. The legislature intends that the earlier discovery of less serious injuries should not affect the statute of limitations for injuries that are discovered later.”

News

January 25, 2012