THE HONORABLE SUSAN K. SERKO KEVIN STOCK

DECLARATION OF DARRELL L. COCHRAN IN

SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MULTICARE’S

DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 of 4

www.pcvalaw.com

AProfessional Limited Liability Company

911 Pacific Avenue, Suite 200Tacoma,WA 98402

Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

THE HONORABLE SUSAN K. SERKO

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIERCE

VELMA WALKER, individually and as a class representative; JAMES STUTZ, individually and as a class representative; KARL WALTHALL, individually and as a class representative; GINA CICHON, individually and as a class representative, and; MELANIE SMALLWOOD, individually and as class representative,

CLASS ACTION NO. 13-2-08746-0 DECLARATION OF DARRELL L. COCHRAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MULTICARE’S DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Plaintiffs,

vs. HUNTER DONALDSON, LLC, a California limited liability company; MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM, a Washington nonprofit corporation; MT. RAINIER EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, a Washington for-profit corporation; REBECCA A. ROHLKE, individually, on behalf of the marital community and as agent of Hunter Donaldson; JOHN DOE ROHLKE, on behalf of the marital community; RALPH WADSWORTH, individually, on behalf of the marital community, and as agent of Hunter Donaldson, and; JANE DOE WADSWORTH, on behalf of the marital community.

Defendants.

I, Darrell L. Cochran, declare and state as follows:

E-FILEDIN COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE

PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON

March 06 2014 11:41 AM

KEVIN STOCKCOUNTY CLERK

NO: 13-2-08746-0





www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1. I am an attorney in the State of Washington. I am over 18 years of age and I

am competent to testify to the facts herein.

2. I represent the Plaintiffs together with co-counsel Tom Gallagher in the above-

entitled matter.

3. After filing this lawsuit, Jason Adams, MultiCare’s former Vice President of

Revenue Cycle, resigned his position with MultiCare Consulting Services and moved to

Maine.

4. Despite the filing of this lawsuit and allegation after allegations against the

Defendants being confirmed by the evidence, MultiCare continues to allow Hunter Donaldson

to attempt to collect on the fraudulent liens notarized by Rebecca Rohlke. My law firm is

contacted every day by individuals and their counsel regarding Hunter Donaldson’s continued

collections efforts.

5. During my February 24, 2013 CR 26(i) conference with MultiCare’s counsel

Michael Madden, I clearly stated that Plaintiffs were seeking production of all

correspondence and other documents exchanged between Adams and the Hunter Donaldson

Defendants.

6. Attached as Exhibit 1 to my declaration is a true and correct copy of a KOMO

4 news article regarding this lawsuit, dated May 31, 2013.

7. Attached as Exhibit 2 to my declaration is a true and correct copy of

MultiCare’s May 2013 press release regarding this lawsuit.





www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8. Attached as Exhibit 3 to my declaration is are true and correct copies of

excerpts from the deposition of Vincent H. Schmitz, taken on November 22, 2013.


Defendant MultiCare’s responses to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories and Requests for

Production, dated February 26, 2014.

10. Attached as Exhibit 5 to my declaration is a true and correct copy, excluding

exhibits, of Plaintiff’s complaint in Miesmer v. Hunter Donaldson, et al, Pierce County Cause

no. 13-2-12653-8, filed on September 4, 2013.


MultiCare’s responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions, dated February 25, 2014.

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY AND PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE

STATE OF WASHINGTON THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

DATED this 6th day of March, 2014.

By:

Darrell L. Cochran





www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Laura Neal, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of

Washington that I am employed at Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC and that on today’s

date, I served the foregoing via Email to the following individuals:

Michael Madden

Amy Magnano

Jenny Churas

Bennett Bigelow & Leedom

601 Union St., Ste. 1500

Seattle, WA 98101

Attorney for MultiCare

Thomas L. Boeder

Cori Moore

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Ave. Ste. 4800

Seattle, WA 98101

DATED this 6th day of March, 2014.

Laura Neal

Legal Assistant to Darrell L. Cochran

4813-1717-5065, v. 1

EXHIBIT 1

Toea Wed Thura

H:ss• H:s4• H:sa•

News(/) Weather (/weather{) Traffic (/traffic/) Sports (/sports/) Healthworks (/news/health/)

Communities (/communities/) IWM04 TV (IIVI) ltOMONBWIIRADIO (/RADIO/)

Suit: MultiCare tricldng crash victims out of millions of doDars ~ P5Y "f1*' fb!lp;/JWww l!pgpnna.cAdYiptgplo/14!131§15 hln1l l F\lblllhed: May 31, 2013at8:00 PMRST(2013-0II-1T4:00:18Z) l..aat ~atad: May 31, 2013 at8:41 PMRST(2013-G8-1T4:41:25Z)

Twaat l~

SEATTLE - Are car crash victims getting tricked out of millions of dollars in lawful settlements at the hands of local hospitals?

Thafs the allegation nade in a class action lawsuit against MultiCare Health System. The suit claims the scheme involves local hospitals, an out-of-state collection coi'J¥)8ny and fraudulent liens.

Melanie Small\wod still gets nervous remell'bering the day in Novell'ber 201 0 v.hen tYtO cars rear ended her.

tense up and I wind up having an arudety attack. • she said.

Smallv.ood's car was totaled and she undenwnt elbow surgery and Meks of painful physical therapy. And then she learned that MultiCare had placed a lien on the $40,000 left of her settlement.

"I o.vas devastated because I was looking forward to having money ... for Christmas, and I was counting on that," she said.

Smallv.ood Is one of five named plaintiffs In a class action suit ftled against M.lltiCare -· 'Atllch operates many of Pierce County's major hospitals •• and a Callfomla colledlon company called 11Jnter Donaldson.

Attorney Darrell Cochran said beginning three years ago, M.lltiCare stopped billing accident victims' Insurance companies and began slapping liens on the their potenUal settlements, demanding thousands more than Insurance would aver pay.

"Literally thousands of people have bean strong-armed by ttmtar Donaldson over the last three years," Cochran said. 'We pay for our medical Insurance to cover this situation. We work to get our medical Insurance and that's 'Atlat should be taking care of this."

Even worse, Cochran alleges the liens against patients like Smallwood aren't evan legal, beoeuaa Washington liens must be amcuted and notarimd in this state.

The notary on the MultiCare liens - Rebecca Rohlke - lists a Gig Harbor home as her residence, but it turns out she doesn't actually live there.

The add rea& Rohlke claims is actually the home address of Jason Adams, the president of MultiCare Consulting and the man 'Atlo hired the California collection company that hired Rohlke.

Adams also signed Rohlke's notary application, endorsing her integrity and good moral character.

Neither Adams nor any representative from MuftiCare would speak about the &tory, but MultiCare did release a stateQJint Chttp://komonaM,s3,amamn8)'!§,com'multicare stateQJint.docxl on Friday saying it is company policy to only file liens when the patienrs insurance is Medicare or Medicaid. Cochran disputes that claim. The coi'J1)8ny is also reviewng 11Jnter-Donaldson's lien-filing practices.

D>

Carwash Supply Outlet r :~ Kleen-Riteeorp.com

Save 45% -At Wholesale Pricing O'der Online & Save More Todayl

MOSl'POPULAR

felix Hernandez

(htll)://www,komonews,oomfoewsJ!ocallfirebreaks-out-at-oome~wned-by-Ms-Feljx-

I ~~~:.~!~~!!1_:!~! _________ _ ~ pbot:Jt• $Jartlgbtlngs

EXHIBIT 2

Health care providers such as MultiCare are allowed under state laws to use medical liens to ensure that patients who receive the benefit of trauma care pay their health care providers when they receive a settlement from the party that caused them harm. The lien statute allows health care providers to be paid out of settlements between plaintiff/patients and third parties and their insurers, thereby placing the cost of care on the parties responsible for the underlying injury. A number of Washington hospitals also use this statute to collect their bills. The way the process typically works is that personal injury plaintiffs and their attorneys will demand that the third party pay the hospital’s billed charges as part of the settlement. Then, when a settlement is reached, the plaintiff and the third party will agree that the plaintiff will pay the hospital bills out of the settlement. The plaintiffs’ attorneys then will either pay the hospital’s bill or try to negotiate a reduced payment. Beginning in 2008, MultiCare contracted with Hunter Donaldson to assist it with the process of recovering medical expenses it is owed. Hunter Donaldson did not actually file on MultiCare’s behalf until 2010, after MultiCare experienced a number of instances where plaintiffs’ attorneys refused to pay. Filing of a lien insured that the hospital’s bills were not ignored. The current lawsuit alleges that the plaintiffs don’t have to pay the hospital out of their settlements because the liens submitted by Hunter Douglas were defective. The court will determine whether the liens were defective. What the lawsuit does not dispute is that MultiCare was entitled to be paid out of the settlement funds the plaintiffs received. MultiCare is currently engaged in a review of Hunter Donaldson’s lien-filing practices in order to determine that best practices are followed going forward. MultiCare’s policy is that liens are not filed in cases where the patient has private insurance because our contracts require that the insurers be billed. Medicare and Medicaid are different; they are regarded as payers of last resort and the hospital must exhaust other avenues before charging the government. MultiCare Consulting Services is a Washington limited liability company that provides consulting services to health care clients nationally. MultiCare owns nearly all of the ownership interests in MCS. MultiCare’s policy is not to comment on personnel matters.

EXHIBIT 3

Transcript of the Testimony of

Vincent H. SchmitzNovember 22, 2013

Miesmer v. Hunter Donaldson LLCNo. 13-2-12653-8

Byers and Anderson, Inc.Court Reporters/Video/Videoconferencing

Seattle/Tacoma, Washington

[email protected] www.byersanderson.com

One Union Square: 600 University Street, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98101-4128Seattle: 206 340-1316 Toll Free: 800 649-2034

Old Town District: 2208 North 30th Street, Suite 202 Taccoma, WA 98403-3360Tacoma: 253 627-6401 Fax: 253 383-4884

Byers & Anderson Court Reporters/Video/VideoconferencingSeattle/Tacoma, Washington

November 22, 2013Vincent H. Schmitz

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIERCE

CHRISTINA MIESMER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) No. 13-2-12653-8 )HUNTER DONALDSON, LLC, a )California limited liability )company; et al., ) ) Defendants. )

DEPOSITION OF VINCENT H. SCHMITZ

November 22, 2013

Tacoma, Washington

Byers & Anderson, Inc.

Court Reporters/Video/Videoconferencing

One Union Square 2208 North 30th Street, Suite 202 600 University St. Tacoma, WA 98403 Suite 2300 (253) 627-6401 Seattle, WA 98101 (253) 383-4884 Fax (206) 340-1316 [email protected] (800) 649-2034 www.byersanderson.com

Serving Washington's Legal Community since 1980



2 (Pages 2 to 5)

Page 2

1 APPEARANCES2 For the Plaintiff:3 Darrell L. Cochran

Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala4 911 Pacific Avenue

Suite 2005 Tacoma, WA 98402

253.777.07986 253.627.0654 Fax

[email protected]

Thomas F. Gallagher8 Law Offices of Watson & Gallagher

3623 South 12th Street9 Tacoma, WA 98405

253.926.843710 253.301.2167 Fax11

For Defendant Multicare:12

Michael Madden13 Bennett Bigelow & Leedom

601 Union Street14 Suite 1500

Seattle, WA 98101-136315 206.622.5511

206.622.8986 Fax16 [email protected]

For Defendant Hunter Donaldson LLC, Rebecca Rohlke,18 and Ralph Wadsworth:19 Cori Gordon Moore

Perkins Coie20 1201 Third Avenue

Suite 480021 Seattle, WA 98101-3099

206.359.384922 206.359.4849 Fax

[email protected]

Page 3

1 EXAMINATION INDEX2 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE NO.3 MR. COCHRAN 545 EXHIBIT INDEX6 EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.78 Exhibit No. 4 15-page first and third party 56

liability recovery service9 agreement, HD000001-15.

10 Exhibit No. 5 16-page first and third party 75 liability recovery service

11 agreement, HD000016-31.12 Exhibit No. 6 10-page business associate 80

agreement, MC-0092-101.13

Exhibit No. 7 11-page business associate 8214 agreement, MC-0116-26.15 Exhibit No. 8 1-page letter to Mr. Adams 83

from Mr. Wadsworth, dated16 1/4/10, MC-0127.17 Exhibit No. 9 1-page letter to Mr. Adams 83

from Mr. Wadsworth, dated18 2/9/10, MC-0128.19 Exhibit No. 10 24-page PowerPoint, "Patient 84

Registration Processes,"20 MC-0147-70.21 Exhibit No. 11 1-page MultiCare mission, 85

vision, values document.22

Exhibit No. 12 2-page document filed with 8623 the Secretary of State

regarding MultiCare24 Consulting Services, LLC.25

Page 4

1 INDEX (CONTINUED)2

Exhibit No. 13 1-page amended report for 873 MultiCare Consulting

Services.4

Exhibit No. 14 1-page "Compensation of 895 hospital employees."6 Exhibit No. 15 2-page "MultiCare vice 90

president earns top7 healthcare management

credential."8

Exhibit No. 16 1-page notice of claim - 919 medical services lien to Ms.

Miesmer.10

Exhibit No. 17 1-page notice of claim - 9211 medical services lien to Ms.

Miesmer.12

Exhibit No. 18 42-page PowerPoint "Revenue 9413 cycle solutions for sustained

delivery."141516171819202122232425

Page 5

1 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Friday,

2 November 22, 2013, at 222 J Street, Tacoma, Washington,

3 at 1:03 p.m., before Terilynn Pritchard, Certified Court

4 Reporter, CCR, RMR, CRR, CLR, appeared VINCENT H.

5 SCHMITZ, the witness herein;

6 WHEREUPON, the following proceedings

7 were had, to wit:

8

9 <<<<<< >>>>>>

10

11 VINCENT H. SCHMITZ, having been first duly sworn

12 by the Certified Court Reporter,

13 testified as follows:

14

15 EXAMINATION

16 BY MR. COCHRAN:

17 Q I will have you state your full name for us on the

18 record.

19 A Vincent Herman Schmitz.

20 Q Where do you currently live?

21 A 7305 Soundview Drive, Unit 301, Gig Harbor, Washington.

22 Q And how long have you lived in Gig Harbor then?

23 A Since 2001.

24 Q And where are you currently employed?

25 A I am self-employed.



3 (Pages 6 to 9)

Page 6

1 Q And where do you do most of your work?

2 A I am currently working on a project in Portland.

3 Q Describe that for us, if you would.

4 A I am serving as the interim chief financial officer for

5 a health system there.

6 Q What is the health system called?

7 A Legacy.

8 Q Legacy Health System or--

9 A I believe it's Legacy Health.

10 Q And how long have you been in that interim position?

11 A Since August.

12 Q Of 2013?

13 A Correct.

14 Q And just prior to that, were you working with MultiCare

15 Consulting Services?

16 A I was.

17 Q Help us understand why you made a change, if you would.

18 A Just I resigned as of October 2nd.

19 Q And were you working in the dual capacity as interim

20 director of the Legacy Health Group as well as in your

21 capacity as the MultiCare Consulting Services employee?

22 A I was an employee of MultiCare Consulting, and they

23 contracted with Legacy for my services.

24 When I left MultiCare Consulting, then I assumed

25 the contract.

Page 7

1 Q Tell us about when you first came into contact with

2 either Ralph Wadsworth or Hunter Donaldson.

3 A I am not sure.

4 Hunter Donaldson was a contractor for MultiCare,

5 and I don't remember when we began that relationship,

6 but, say, maybe 2008, 2009, something like that.

7 Q So how did they come to your attention, understanding

8 that Hunter Donaldson was a vendor of some sort for

9 MultiCare Health Services? How did they come

10 specifically into your cognition or your awareness?

11 A Well, they were selected by staff that reported to me,

12 and that's how they came to my attention.

13 Q And so what staff then would have brought them to your

14 attention?

15 A I believe it was Jason Adams.

16 Q And roughly at the time that Jason Adams would have

17 brought Hunter Donaldson to your attention, what

18 position were you in and what position was he in?

19 A He reported to me as vice president of the revenue

20 cycle, and I was the chief financial officer.

21 Q And you were the chief financial officer for MultiCare

22 Health Systems as opposed to MultiCare Consulting

23 Services; is that right?

24 A And I think it's System.

25 Q System.

Page 8

1 So in the 2008, 2009 time frame, you were the chief

2 financial officer for MultiCare Health System, correct?

3 A Correct.

4 Q And Jason Adams was the vice president of the department

5 of revenue cycle?

6 A Well, we called it revenue cycle. We didn't put the

7 "department" in front of it.

8 Q Explain for us, if you would, the reporting

9 responsibilities that Jason Adams had in terms of

10 advising you about using Hunter Donaldson as a vendor at

11 that time.

12 What I am trying to understand is what reporting

13 did Jason Adams do with you on a regular basis in his

14 capacity as vice president of revenue cycle?

15 A Well, he was responsible for a number of departments at

16 MultiCare, and he reported to me.

17 Q And so would that have been on a daily basis that you

18 were in contact with him or a different time frame?

19 A It depended.

20 Q And so give us examples so we have some understanding of

21 how much contact you had with Jason Adams then.

22 A Well, he was officed on the third floor of our office

23 building, and I was on the fourth floor, and I would see

24 him in the office occasionally, and we would attend

25 meetings together, and occasionally he would meet with

Page 9

1 me.

2 Q And as CFO back in the 2008, 2009 time frame, you had a

3 number of responsibilities.

4 Help us understand them.

5 A Very traditional role as chief financial officer.

6 I was responsible for accounting, processing,

7 accounts payable and accounts receivable, and

8 contracting, and a number of activities, treasury.

9 Q And explain to us what responsibilities Jason Adams had

10 then at that time as the vice president of revenue

11 cycle.

12 A I believe he had a couple hundred employees reporting to

13 him, so he had inpatient accounting and outpatient

14 accounting and admitting and contracting and revenue

15 integrity, functions such as that.

16 Q Was revenue integrity all one term or were they separate

17 terms?

18 A Two words.

19 Q What I'm trying to understand is were you saying a

20 function known as, quote, "revenue integrity," unquote,

21 or are they separate functions?

22 A That's one department.

23 Q Help us understand what they do.

24 A Well, they're responsible for functions such as the

25 charge master where we have 100,000 items that we charge



8 (Pages 26 to 29)

Page 26

1 Q And what was your capacity there, by the way?

2 A I was the client development officer.

3 Q Help us understand why you switched from the CFO spot to

4 the MultiCare Consulting Services position.

5 A Well, I got old.

6 Q So were you working less hours with MultiCare Consulting

7 Services?

8 A Well, it was a different type of job.

9 Q Let me just eliminate this possibility.

10 Was there anything performance-wise that caused you

11 to step out of the CFO position?

12 A No. I think I left at the top of my game.

13 Q You and Michael Jordan.

14 Good work.

15 So you stay with MultiCare Consulting Services for

16 about four years and X number of months before you've

17 made the switch to Legacy, right?

18 A Well, I was performing as CFO at MultiCare until 2012, I

19 was working a limited amount of time on the consulting

20 company until January of 2013, and I worked full time in

21 that role until October, and then I decided to leave the

22 company.

23 Q So you were full time with MultiCare Consulting Services

24 from January 2013 to October of 2013, right?

25 A Correct.

Page 27

1 Q Did any pressure from the situation with Hunter

2 Donaldson's liens that have been challenged in the

3 lawsuit play a part in your decision to leave MultiCare

4 Consulting Services?

5 A Well, indirectly.

6 Jason Adams resigned. There was new leadership in

7 the company, and I decided to leave.

8 Q Did Jason Adams leave MultiCare Consulting Services

9 because of the situation with the Hunter Donaldson

10 liens?

11 A He resigned, and there were a number of reasons.

12 I don't know what they were.

13 Q Did he talk to you about the reasons why he was leaving?

14 A He said he was going to resign because-- he thought it

15 would be difficult to continue, giving the publicity of

16 the lawsuit.

17 Q Did Jason Adams talk to you about his involvement in

18 obtaining the notary for Hunter Donaldson that has led

19 to this situation with the liens?

20 A When I became aware of the lawsuit, I asked him what had

21 happened, and so we talked.

22 Q Okay. Help us understand what you talked about.

23 A Essentially he said that he felt that they needed to

24 have a notary that was licensed in the state of

25 Washington, and so he assisted the lady from Hunter

Page 28

1 Donaldson in obtaining a notary public license in

2 Washington.

3 Q And did he admit to you that he let her use his home

4 address in order to obtain the Washington state notary?

5 A He said-- well, repeat your question.

6 (Question on Page 28, Line 3-

7 4 read by the reporter.)

8

9 THE WITNESS: What he told me was

10 that they used his home address as the mailing address

11 for the lady.

12 Q (By Mr. Cochran) From what I understood of your

13 testimony a second ago, Jason Adams told you that he

14 felt Hunter Donaldson needed to have a Washington state

15 notary to do the liens here for MultiCare; is that

16 right?

17 MS. MOORE: Objection to the form.

18 Go ahead.

19 THE WITNESS: Now--

20 Q (By Mr. Cochran) She can make objections to the record,

21 but--

22 A When she does that, I lose track of what you asked me.

23 Q Did Jason Adams tell you that he felt that Hunter

24 Donaldson needed a notary license here in Washington

25 state in order to file liens on behalf of MultiCare?

Page 29

1 A I think that was-- I don't know what he told me.

2 I think he thought that that's what he needed.

3 I think I asked him, "Well, why didn't you just use

4 somebody in the office," because we had notaries in the

5 office.

6 Q And so what did he say when you asked him that question?

7 A He said, "Yeah, I should have thought of that," I think.

8 Q And did he feel that he had been tricked by Hunter

9 Donaldson in this situation?

10 MR. MADDEN: Objection to the form.

11 MS. MOORE: Join.

12 Q (By Mr. Cochran) Go ahead.

13 A I don't know. He didn't say.

14 Q Fair enough.

15 Help us understand though what he was conveying to

16 you as he's talking about what happened because it

17 played some part in his decision to leave, right?

18 A Start again.

19 Q Let me break it down into pieces.

20 If I understood your testimony correctly, Jason

21 Adams left MultiCare Consulting Services, in part,

22 because of the pressure of the publicity from this

23 situation with the liens at Hunter Donaldson, correct?

24 A Yeah, it was a bad situation with the-- there was an

25 article in the local paper that accused MultiCare of



9 (Pages 30 to 33)

Page 30

1 fraud and was on the front page.

2 I saw that when I was eating breakfast on Sunday

3 morning, and that didn't make my day.

4 Then there was this TV reporter that came into the

5 office.

6 Then they went to Jason's house, and his wife was

7 very upset, being subjected to that, and so that was

8 kind of humiliating, I think.

9 Q And so understanding then that he probably had strong

10 emotions, did he talk to you about how he felt about the

11 situation?

12 A Well, he said that his family was-- it was a problem

13 with his family and that he just felt he couldn't

14 continue in the job, and that was the reason he was

15 leaving.

16 Q Did he talk to you about how it had been handled by

17 Hunter Donaldson, in terms of telling him what they felt

18 they needed in order to carry out the contract with

19 MultiCare Health System?

20 A No.

21 I just said, "Well, gosh, this is such a

22 technicality on the notary, that-- that's the cheapest

23 and easiest thing to do, is just get a notary that

24 notarizes stuff, so why did you have to do it this way,"

25 but I didn't get a good answer.

Page 31

1 He said, "Yeah, I should have done it differently."

2 He felt it was a mistake.

3 Q In terms of timing, did you learn about the lawsuit

4 right about the time that the publicity came out?

5 A Well, it was-- I got the notice from our legal

6 department, and then it seemed like it was several weeks

7 later that this article appeared in the paper, and then

8 several weeks later this TV spot hit, and that's all I

9 know.

10 Q So after you found out that there had been a lawsuit

11 filed over the issue and that there were allegations

12 that there was fraud in Hunter Donaldson's procurement

13 of the notary, and that there were defective liens

14 allegedly, what did you do, if anything, in terms of

15 following up on that yourself?

16 A Nothing.

17 Q And tell us why not.

18 A What?

19 Excuse me, my wife says I'm hard of hearing, but I

20 deny it.

21 Q Why didn't you do any follow-up on your own?

22 A Well, it wasn't my job.

23 Q So people understand your answer, why don't you explain

24 it for us.

25 For example, because MultiCare Health System had a

Page 32

1 legal system; is that why?

2 A Well, I had been the chief financial officer for

3 MultiCare and responsible for that area, and then I had

4 retired from that role, and I was working in a different

5 role at the consulting company, and I was not really

6 responsible for this action against MultiCare Health

7 System.

8 Q Have you had to talk to the board about Hunter

9 Donaldson's situation since you found out about the

10 lawsuit in the spring of 2013?

11 A No, because I no longer attend board meetings at

12 MultiCare Health System.

13 Q Outside of lawyers who might have been talking to you

14 since the lawsuit was first filed, have you spoken in

15 any official capacity with MultiCare Health System or

16 MultiCare Consulting Services about Hunter Donaldson's

17 work with the company?

18 A Well, I don't have an official capacity.

19 Q You do within MultiCare Consulting Services or you did

20 until recently, right?

21 A Well, I didn't have any responsibility for the Hunter

22 Donaldson matter after December of 2012.

23 Q So let me broaden it out from an official capacity to

24 informal.

25 Have you been asked by anyone from MultiCare Health

Page 33

1 System, outside of the attorneys, to explain any part of

2 the contracting with Hunter Donaldson or its work?

3 A Just the legal department.

4 Q Have you gathered any documents, either for the legal

5 department or for anyone else, in terms of information

6 you had about Hunter Donaldson or Ralph Wadsworth?

7 A No.

8 Q Have you talked to Ralph Wadsworth or Mark Hess since

9 April of 2013 when this first became known to you, the

10 lawsuit?

11 A I have not talked to Ralph Wadsworth, I don't think, and

12 I have had one or two conversations with Mark Hess.

13 Q Tell us about those.

14 What was the substance?

15 A Well, Mark had joined Hunter Donaldson after all of this

16 had taken place, so I asked him, "Well, what do you know

17 about it," and he said he didn't know anything about it.

18 Q And did he follow up with you or guarantee you that he

19 would go and find out information and report back to

20 you?

21 A He said he didn't know anything.

22 I said, "Well, I would be interested to find out

23 what was going on," but "I don't know what was going

24 on."

25 Q Did anyone answer that question to you as to what was



10 (Pages 34 to 37)

Page 34

1 going on with Hunter Donaldson and why they did what

2 they did?

3 A No.

4 Q In terms of the decision you made about leaving

5 MultiCare Consulting Services, were you getting any

6 pressure from anyone inside of MultiCare Health System

7 or MultiCare Consulting Services to leave?

8 A No.

9 Q Did you have any discussions with anyone within those

10 two systems about whether it was a good idea to leave at

11 the point that you did?

12 A I was upset that my compensation system was being

13 changed.

14 Q And that was something that came up as a dynamic in--

15 sometime this year, 2013?

16 A Yeah.

17 Q How many people, other than lawyers, have you asked the

18 question about why Hunter Donaldson did the liens and

19 notaries like they did?

20 A Oh, just-- I might have asked "Why did they take that

21 step? It doesn't make sense to me."

22 People inside the company, you know, and stuff-- I

23 didn't understand it. It didn't make sense to me.

24 I thought it was the silliest move I had ever heard

25 of.

Page 35

1 "Why would you do something like that?"

2 I was confused.

3 Q So who have you got a chance to ask that question to?

4 A Several people within the consulting company and a

5 couple of people within MultiCare.

6 I have talked to the legal department about it,

7 but--

8 Q So we may or may not have asked the same people you

9 asked, but I'm curious of who you did within the system

10 outside of the legal department.

11 Obviously you asked Jason Adams.

12 Who else did you talk to?

13 A Probably the three managing directors.

14 Q Who are they?

15 A Jake Morris and James Kinney and Tim Kinney.

16 I probably talked to Florence Chang.

17 That's probably--

18 Q What position--

19 A And Diane Cecchettini.

20 I don't know how to spell it.

21 Q What did Ms. Cecchettini have to say about it?

22 A Well, she was the president of the health system.

23 She was chairman of the board of the consulting

24 company, and I would attend those board meetings, but--

25 Q And was she able to give any insight, Ms. Cecchettini,

Page 36

1 that is?

2 A No. She was as confused as I was, about why that would

3 have happened.

4 Q Florence Chang, what position does she have within the

5 organization?

6 A She's the executive vice president for MultiCare, so she

7 reports to Diane.

8 Q Was she able to give any insight as to why stuff had

9 happened as it had?

10 A No.

11 Q Mr. Kinney is within MultiCare Consulting Services,

12 right?

13 A Kinney, K-I-N-N-E-Y.

14 Q And he's within MultiCare Consulting Services?

15 A There are three managing directors.

16 Q So he's one of them, James Kinney is one of them, Jake

17 Morris is one of them.

18 Did any of those three have any insight into why

19 stuff had happened the way it did with Hunter Donaldson?

20 A No.

21 Q So Jason Adams is the only one who had substantive

22 knowledge about what had happened and why?

23 A And his answer was, "I made a mistake."

24 Q And did he-- let me phrase it this way:

25 He acknowledged that he was trying to trick the

Page 37

1 Department of Licensing from the Washington State into

2 believing that Rebecca Rohlke, the daughter of Ralph

3 Wadsworth, was a Washington state resident, right?


5 MS. MOORE: Same objection.

6 THE WITNESS: You said "trick" or

7 whatever.

8 He said he made a mistake not using someone-- I

9 don't know.

10 It was a confusing form, and he said that the form

11 was confusing, and so he provided his address as a

12 mailing address.

13 Q (By Mr. Cochran) Have you looked at the form?

14 A I have not.

15 Q All right. Did he admit to you that he not only gave

16 Rebecca Rohlke, the daughter of Ralph Wadsworth, his

17 address to use on the form, but he gave a PO Box as his

18 residence address on the form?

19 A I didn't know that.

20 Q And just to make clear on the record, did Jason Adams

21 tell you that he found the form confusing and that

22 that's why all of that happened as it did?

23 A Yeah.

24 He said the form was confusing.

25 I was confused why he didn't just use the person in



11 (Pages 38 to 41)

Page 38

1 the office who was a notary licensed in Washington.

2 That was my-- "Why did you even bother to get this

3 person licensed?"

4 Q When you talked to Jason Adams, by any chance did you

5 have the newspaper and walk through the various issues

6 that were detailed by the paper?

7 A Did I have the newspaper--

8 Q Right.

9 For example, did you have it on your desk and say,

10 "What about this, Jason? It says here X, Y, and Z"?

11 A Well, I read the article in the paper.

12 I don't think I took it with me, but-- and, you

13 know how newspaper articles are, they sometimes get it

14 right and sometimes they don't, and so I read it, and I

15 think I read the-- I don't know what I got from the

16 department, but they sent something saying, "Don't get

17 rid of anything. Keep all your records. Don't talk to

18 anybody about this," so I tried to do what I was told.

19 Q Did you ever talk to-- do you know who Colleen Kelly is?

20 A Mm-hm.

21 Q Have you talked to her about this situation at all?

22 A Just in general terms.

23 Q What kind of general terms?

24 A "This is a mess, isn't it?"

25 Q And what kind of feedback did she give?

Page 39

1 A "Yeah."

2 Q Do you know who Susan George is?

3 A Yeah.

4 Q Did you get a chance to talk to her about it?

5 A No.

6 Q Do you know who Melissa Blackburn is?

7 A Yeah.

8 Q And did she ever work directly for you?

9 A Not directly.

10 She was an assistant in the office but didn't

11 report to me.

12 Q And have you talked to her at all about the situation?

13 A No.

14 Q Let me back up and get a little background from you.

15 You mentioned you started in the healthcare

16 industry back in 1972.

17 Tell us about what you were doing back then.

18 What was your first job in the healthcare industry?

19 A Chief accountant.

20 Q And where was that at?

21 A At Mercy Hospital in Bakersfield.

22 Q Let me back up a little bit from that point and get an

23 understanding of your college and postgrad work or grad

24 work that you did that led you to be a chief in

25 accounting at Mercy Hospital.

Page 40

1 When did you graduate from undergrad and where was

2 that from?

3 A University of California at Santa Barbara.

4 Q What year did you graduate from there?

5 A 1968.

6 Q And then did you go on and do master's work?

7 A I did.

8 Q Where was that at?

9 A California State University at Sacramento.

10 Q And when did you get your master's?

11 A When?

12 Q Yes.

13 A 1971.

14 Q Did you do doctorate work after that?

15 A No.

16 Q Have you done any doctorate work?

17 A No.

18 Q And you got your master's in business?

19 A Yes.

20 Q So how long did you work at Mercy Hospital?

21 A 15 years.

22 Q And from there in 1987-ish, where did you go?

23 A Mercy Healthcare, Sacramento.

24 Q Did you grow up in the Sacramento area?

25 A No.

Page 41

1 Q Where did you grow up at?

2 A Bakersfield.

3 Q And so am I right that that was roughly 1987 when you

4 started with Mercy Health in Sacramento?

5 A Mercy Healthcare.

6 Q 1987?

7 A Yes.

8 Q How long did you work there?

9 A Ten years.

10 Q So roughly 1997 you changed positions.

11 Where did you go?

12 A I stayed within the same company, so I went to San

13 Francisco for Catholic Healthcare West.

14 Q Catholic Healthcare West?

15 A Yes.

16 Q Were you chief of accounting there?

17 A I was senior vice president of finance.

18 Q And so how long did you stay in that position?

19 A One year.

20 Q And then what did you do?

21 A Then I transferred to Phoenix, same company, and I was

22 president of the shared business service organization.

23 Q Help us understand what that is.

24 A The shared service organization provides support

25 services for the corporation, so accounting, real



13 (Pages 46 to 49)

Page 46

1 Q Were you involved in hiring Jason Adams from Wellspring?

2 A Initially I hired Wellspring, and Jason Adams worked for

3 Wellspring.

4 He did a nice job for us, and so I negotiated with

5 Wellspring to release Jason so that he could come to

6 work for MultiCare.

7 Q If we asked for information that Wellspring had

8 provided, in its consulting capacity, to MultiCare

9 Health System, what kind of stuff would there be to see?

10 In other words, what deliverable or what product

11 did Wellspring give to MultiCare, if anything?

12 A Well, we engaged them to help us when Jason was on that

13 project.

14 It was to help with the going live with Epic, and

15 Epic is an electronic health records system.

16 Q And was that the primary reason why Wellspring was hired

17 by MultiCare?

18 A Initially, yes.

19 Q And did it morph out from that to other improvements in

20 revenue cycle that--

21 A It did, yes.

22 Q And so that's what I want to take a look at.

23 Outside of the Epic transition-- acquisition,

24 transition, what were the other products that Wellspring

25 brought to MultiCare?

Page 47

1 A Well, we engaged with them to help us consolidate the

2 business office from Good Samaritan Hospital in

3 Puyallup.

4 We had affiliated with them in 2006, and we wanted

5 to consolidate the business office, so we engaged with

6 Wellspring, a large contract, to help us.

7 Part of that was to enhance and improve the revenue

8 cycle.

9 There were, again, a lot of initiatives at that

10 time.

11 Q So I can tell there's a lot of stuff with Wellspring

12 that we will have no interest in, in terms of what we're

13 doing.

14 What I want to focus on though is, was there any

15 report provided to MultiCare, by Wellspring, where it

16 gave the list of 45 different strategic possibilities

17 that could enhance the revenue cycle work?

18 A Well, the 45 bubble points, that was something else.

19 Q Right. I'm just using that as an example.

20 A We engaged them. It was a large contract. They were

21 incentivized. We had part at risk, part at fee-- it was

22 a big project, a lot of money.

23 I don't remember how much, but it was a big

24 contract.

25 Q And so would there have been a strategic development

Page 48

1 report handed to you at some point from Wellspring

2 saying, "Mr. Schmitz, here is our product. This is the

3 sum of our recommendations that we're making for revenue

4 cycle"?

5 Did you get anything like that?

6 A I don't know what we got, but they sold the business,

7 and we had a contract, and we had reports, and we got

8 results, and-- you know, that was five years ago.

9 Q And so do you know, one way or another, whether

10 Wellspring brought Hunter Donaldson to your attention or

11 was it specifically Jason Adams--

12 A I don't know.

13 Q Did Hunter Donaldson do anything, in terms of convincing

14 you specifically of hiring them on as a vendor?

15 A Me?

16 Q Right.

17 A No.

18 Q Would that have been entirely through Jason Adams?

19 A I don't know. It probably involved his staff and so on.

20 Q Have you heard anything suggesting that Hunter Donaldson

21 gave money to Jason Adams in order to secure the

22 contract with MultiCare Health System, at any point?

23 A I don't have any knowledge of that.

24 Q Understanding that you might not have any knowledge of

25 it, have you heard that that's a possibility at any

Page 49

1 point?

2 A There were some rumors about that.

3 Q And where were the rumors coming from?

4 A I think it was speculation of why was there a

5 relationship with Hunter Donaldson.

6 Q But speculation that was coming from within MultiCare?

7 A Yeah, people-- so "Talk to legal."

8 Q And do you know one way or another whether it's been

9 verified or rejected that Jason Adams had received money

10 from Hunter Donaldson to secure the contract?

11 A I don't have any knowledge of that.

12 Q Just so we have a clear record here, let me ask you the

13 same thing:

14 Did you ever receive money from Hunter Donaldson at

15 any point?

16 A No.

17 Q We've heard from employees, like Colleen Kelly and Susan

18 George, that MultiCare employees generally got a gain

19 bonus-- I'm forgetting the word that they used, but a

20 year-end bonus that depended on whether MultiCare had

21 met certain revenue strategic goals.

22 Does that sound familiar to you?

23 A Well, most employees had some type of incentive for

24 performance, and performance would include quality

25 measures and customer satisfaction, and typically there



27 (Pages 102 to 104)

Page 102

1 patients that it would be using Hunter Donaldson in the

2 role that it did?


4 THE WITNESS: I don't know.

5 Q (By Mr. Cochran) Explain for us what you mean by you

6 don't know.

7 A I don't know.

8 Q You were so detached from it all, that--

9 A I don't know what the law is.

10 Q But what's your business sense of it or your patient

11 relationship--

12 A I don't think we ever did it for a collection agency

13 or-- I just don't think we did that.

14 Q But in terms of the operation of this agreement, did you

15 have an understanding that MultiCare Health System was

16 transferring information about its patients to Hunter

17 Donaldson within hours sometimes of them being in the

18 emergency room?

19 A I don't know.

20 I really don't know how it worked.

21 Q And who is the best person to ask about how it worked,

22 in your estimation?

23 A Hunter Donaldson.

24 Q That's what we'll do.

25 MR. COCHRAN: Thanks. That's all the

Page 103

1 questions.2 (Deposition concluded at 3:57 p.m.)3 (Signature reserved.)456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

1 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) I, Terilynn Pritchard, RMR, CRR, ) ss CLR, a certified court reporter

2 County of Pierce ) in the State of Washington, do hereby certify:

34

That the foregoing deposition of VINCENT H.5 SCHMITZ was taken before me and completed on

November 22, 2013, and thereafter was transcribed under my6 direction; that the deposition is a full, true and complete

transcript of the testimony of said witness, including all7 questions, answers, objections, motions and exceptions;8 That the witness, before examination, was by me

duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and9 nothing but the truth, and that the witness reserved the

right of signature;10

That I am not a relative, employee, attorney or11 counsel of any party to this action or relative or employee

of any such attorney or counsel and that I am not12 financially interested in the said action or the outcome

thereof;13

That I am herewith securely sealing the said14 deposition and promptly delivering the same to

Attorney Darrell L. Cochran.15

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my16 signature on the 26th day of November, 2013.171819202122 ____________________________________

Terilynn Pritchard, CCR, RMR, CRR, CLR23 Certified Court Reporter No. 2047.2425

EXHIBIT 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

FOR PIERCE COUNTY

VELMA WALKER, individually and as a class representative; JAMES STUTZ, individually and as a class representative; KARL WALTHALL, individually and as a class representative; GINA CICHON, individually and as a class representative, and MELANIE SMALL WOOD, individually and as class representative,

Plaintiff,

VS.

HUNTER DONALDSON, LLC, a California limited liability company; MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM, a Washington nonprofit corporation; REBECCA A. ROHLKE, individually, on behalf of the marital community and as agent ofHunter Donaldson; JOHN DOE ROHLKE, on behalf of the marital community; RALPH WADSWORTH, individually, on behalf of the marital community, and as agent of Hunter Donaldson, and JANE DOE WADS WORTH, on behalf of the marital

NO. 13-2-12653-8

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. WITH OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES

2 2 community, Defendants.

23

24 TO: MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC and its attorney of record.

25

PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO MUL TICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS - WITH RESPONSES Page 1 of23

LAW OFFICES

BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM, P.S. 601 Union Street, Suite 1500

Seattle, Washington 98101-1363

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Pursuant to Civil Rules 26, 33 and 34, Plaintiffs propound the following

Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Defendant Ralph Wadsworth [sic] to be

responded to separately and fully, under oath, within forty ( 40) days after the date of service

of theses request upon you or your attorney.

I. INSTRUCTIONS

A. PROCEDURES

Plaintiffs propound the following interrogatories pursuant to CR 33. You are further

requested, pursuant to CR 34, to produce for inspection and copying the documents described

in each request below at the Law Offices of Watson & Gallagher, P.S., 3623 S. lih Street,

Tacoma, Washington 98405. Signed and verified answers to these interrogatories and true

and accurate copies of the requested documents must be provided within forty (40) days after

you have been served with this document.

B. SCOPE OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

The requests for production are intended to encompass the original document and all

copies that differ from the original in any respect, for example, by reason of notations made

upon the copy. These requests are also intended to encompass all documents of any nature

which are now, or have at any time been, within your care, custody, or control.

C. ASSERTION OF PRNILEGE

If you contend that any document encompassed by any request is privileged, in whole

or in part, or if you otherwise object to its production, then with respect to each such

document:

PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS - WITH RESPONSES Page 2 of23

LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1. State with particularity the reason or reasons for your objection and the nature

of any privilege asserted;

2. Identify each person having knowledge of the factual basis, if any, upon which

the privilege or other objection is asserted; and

3. State the following:

a. Date ofthe document;

b. Nature or type of the document (e.g., whether letter, memorandum, etc.);

c. Identity of each individual who prepared the document;

d. Identity of each person to whom the document, or a copy thereof, has at

any time been provided;

e. Identity of each person from whom the document has been obtained;

f. Identity of each person or entity having possession of the original of the

document (or if the whereabouts of the original are unknown, the identity

of each person or entity known or believed to have a copy or copies

thereof);

g. All other information necessary to identify the document with sufficient

particularity to meet the requirements for its inclusion in a motion for

production pursuant to CR 37; and

h. If such document was, but is no longer within your care, custody, or

control, state what disposition was made of it, who disposed of it, the

reason for such disposition, and the date upon which it was so disposed.

PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS - WITH RESPONSES

LAW OFFICES

BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM, P.S. 60 I Union Street, Suite 1500

Page 3 of23 Seattle, Washington 98!01-1363

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

D. DEFINITIONS

Included below are definitions of the terms used in these interrogatories and requests

for production. Please read these definitions carefully. Some of the terms used in these

interrogatories and requests for production are given definitions which may be more

expansive than the definitions which those terms are given in common usage.

1. The term "you" or "your" or "MultiCare" or "Multicare" refers to defendant

MultiCare Health System, its officers, employees, agents and attorneys and

Multicare's wholly owned subsidiary, Medis Corporation, its formerly wholly

owned subsidiary, Multicare Consulting Services, L.L.C., and their officers,

employees, agents and attorneys.

2. The term "Hunter Donaldson" or Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. refers to defendant

Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. and its officers, employees, agents and attorneys

3. The term "the Complaint" or "plaintiffs' Complaint" refers to plaintiffs'

Complaint that was served upon you contemporaneous with these

interrogatories and requests for production of documents.

4. The terms "document" or "documents" shall refer to and include the original

(or an identical duplicate if the original is not available), and any non-identical

copies (whether non-identical because of notes made on copies or attached

comments, annotations, marks, transmission notations, or highlighting of any

kind) of writings of every kind and description that are fixed in any form of

physical media. Physical media include, but are not limited to, paper media,

phonographic media, photographic film media (including pictures, films, slides

PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO MULTI CARE HEALTH SYSTEMS - WITH RESPONSES

LAW OFFICES


Page 4 of23 Seattle, Washington 98101-1363

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

and microfilm), magnetic media (including but not limited to hard disks,

floppy disks, compact disks and magnetic tapes of any kind), computer

memory, optical media, magneto-optical media, and other physical media on

which notations or marking of any kind can be affixed.

Documents include, by way of example only, any memorandum,

request envelope, correspondence, e-mail, e-mail attachment, report, Post-It,

message, telephone message, telephone log, diary, journal, appointment

calendar, calendar, group scheduler calendar, drawing, painting, accounting

paper, minutes, working paper, financial report, accounting report, work

papers, drafts, facsimile, facsimile transmission, report, contract, invoice,

record of purchase or sale, Teletype message, chart, graph, index, directory,

computer directory, computer disk, computer tape, or any other written printed,

typed, punched, taped, filmed, or graphic matter however produced or

reproduced. Documents also include the file, folder tabs, and labels appended

to or containing any documents.

5. The terms '"communicate" or "communication" means any exchange, transfer

or transmittal of information, ideas, commentary, thoughts, actions or opinions

at any time or place and is not limited to transfers between persons, but

includes other transfers, such as toll transfers, computer transfers, modem

transfers, and the transference of records and memoranda to file.

PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS - WITH RESPONSES

LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6. The terms "identify" or "identity'' mean:

a. When used in reference to an individual person, to state his or her full

name; present (or last known) address and telephone number; present (or

last known) position; and business affiliation at present and at the time in

question.

b. When used in reference to a business, organization, or other entity, to give

the legal name of the entity, a description of its nature (e.g., corporation,

Limited Liability Company, partnership, joint venture, etc.), any business

or assumed names under which it does business, its principal place of

business, and the address and telephone number of the office(s) of such

entity which are involved in the transaction about which the interrogatory

or request is seeking information.

c. When used in reference to a statement, to state the date on which the

statement was given, where it was given, the names and addresses of the

person or persons to whom it was given or by whom it was taken, and who

has custody of such statement or copies thereof. If any statement was, but

is no longer in your possession, custody, or control, state what disposition

was made of it and reasons for such disposition.

d. When used in reference to documents, to state the date and author, type of

document or some other means of identifying it, and its present location or

custodian. If any such document was, but is no longer in your possession or

subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it. In lieu of

identifying any document, you may produce the document, though your

PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO MUL TICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS - WITH RESPONSES

LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

answer should state where the particular document can be located among

all produced documents.

e. When used in reference to any electronic data, to state the title and author;

the software and operating system under which the data was created; the

type of data (i.e., word processing document, spreadsheet, database,

application program, etc.); all other information to identify the electronic

data with sufficient particularity; and its present or last known location or

custodian. If any such electronic data was, or no longer is, in your

possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it

and the reason for such disposition.

7. The term "describe," means to state every material fact and circumstance

specifically and completely (including, but not limited to, date, time, location,

and the identity of all participants), and whether each such fact or circumstance

is stated on knowledge, information, or belief, or is alleged without foundation.

8. The phrases "relating to," "relates to," or "regarding" or any variations thereof

mean consisting of, summarizing, describing, reflecting, referring to, or

connected in any way with the subject matter of the request.

9. - The term "person" or "persons" shall refer to and include any individual,

corporation, partnership, firm, association, of any other entity of any kind.

10. The term "and" shall also mean "or," and the term "or" shall also mean "and."

11. For all terms in these in these discovery requests, the plural shall include the

singular, and the singular shall include the plural.


LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

E. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND RESPONSES REQUIRED.

These interrogatories and requests for production are continuing in nature. In the event

you discover or acquire further information or documentation that is responsive, you are

required to supplement both your answers and furnish additional production of any document

within the scope of this request.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

MultiCare asserts the following general objections to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Requests for Production ("Requests"), which are incorporated by reference in each specific response as though set forth fully herein:

1. MultiCare objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information, or purport to impose duties or obligations, beyond those set forth in the civil and local procedural rules. MultiCare does not agree to undertake any obligations beyond those required by those rules.

2. MultiCare objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work-product doctrine, the joint prosecution privilege, or any other privilege or doctrine of confidentiality provided by law, or that otherwise constitutes information prepared for or in anticipation of litigation. Such information will not be produced; and inadvertent production of privileged information shall not constitute a waiver of any applicable protection against disclosure.

3. MultiCare objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek information not currently in MultiCare's possession, custody, or control.

4. MultiCare objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek information, the acquisition of which would subject MultiCare to unreasonable and undue annoyance, oppression, burden and expense.

5. MultiCare objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek information not related to the claims or defenses of any party in this matter or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

6. MultiCare objects to the Requests to the extent that they contain terms that are vague or ambiguous. MultiCare also objects to the Plaintiffs definition of words to the extent they are inconsistent with the plain meaning of those words or impose an expanded definition of the words or phrases. By responding to a Request containing such a definition, Multi Care does not adopt Plaintiffs definitions of the term. MultiCare expressly reserves its right to narrow the scope of the purported definition.

7. MultiCare objects to the definition of "you" or "your" or "MultiCare" as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it purports to require admissions from persons or entities that are not parties to this litigation. Any answer provided by MultiCare


LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

will be limited to the information and documents actually within its possession, custody or control.

8. MultiCare objects to the Requests to the extent that they call for disclosure of information containing trade secrets or proprietary, sensitive, or other confidential business information in the absence of a mutually acceptable protective order.

9. MultiCare objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek admissions of legal conclusions and supporting facts that are not reasonably ascertainable or available at this stage of the litigation.

10. MultiCare objects to the Requests to the extent that they· are premature. In responding to such requests, MultiCare in no way concedes their relevance to the merits and expressly reserves other objections to those requests. MultiCare's investigation of this case is ongoing. MultiCare's responses are being made after reasonably inquiry into the relevant facts, and the responses are based upon the information and documentation that is presentably available to and known to it. Further investigation and discovery may result in the identification of additional information or contentions, and MultiCare reserves the right to modify its responses. MultiCare's responses should not be construed to prejudice its right to conduct further investigation in this case, or to limit MultiCare's use of any additional evidence that may develop.

INTERROGATORIES

Interrogatory No. 1: Please identify all persons who assisted in answering these interrogatories.

Answer: MultiCare objects to Interrogatory No. 1 because, as written, it requires information protected by the attorney/client privilege and work product doctrine including counsel's mental impressions. United States v. National Steel Corp., 26 F.R.D. 599, 600 (S.D. Tex. 1960) ("There is no right in the plaintiff to know the persons connected in any way with the preparation of the answers to the interrogatories."); Maple Drive-In Theatre Corp. v. Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corp., 153 F.Supp. 240, 244 (S.D.N.Y. 1956) ("Defendants need not identify the persons who cooperated in preparation of the answers to these interrogatories. Plaintiff is free to serve further interrogatories if it seeks additional information concerning persons with knowledge of the relevant facts."); Hopkins Theatre, Inc. v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. 18 F.R.D. 379, 383 (S.D. N.Y. 1956) ("[Regarding] Interrogatory 59, asking the name of persons who assisted in the preparation of the answers to the interrogatories, . . . I see no justification for the question, and objections will be sustained."). Further objection is made that Interrogatory No. 1 violates Rule 26(b)(l), which only permits the discovery of the identity and location of persons with knowledge.

Interrogatory No. 2: Please describe in detail how MultiCare employees screen patients or otherwise obtain information from patients to determine whether a medical lien


LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

should or might be filed for the costs of the patient's treatment. Please include in your response the following information:

a. The position(s) and department(s) within MultiCare of the persons who screen or obtain information from patients;

b. What types of information is obtained from the patients; c. Identify the person(s), their position(s) and department(s) who review the

information obtained from the patients and make a determination that a medical lien should be filed; and

d. Describe in detail what patient information is transferred to Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. for the filing of a medical lien.

Answer: During the relevant time period, Hunter Donaldson, LLC ("HD") determined whether medical service liens should be filed based on data provided by the patient or recorded by healthcare providers indicating that the person suffered a traumatic injury caused by a third party. Pursuant to a Business Associate Agreement between HD and MultiCare, HD accessed records of emergency department care at MultiCare hospitals and screened cases appropriate for third party liability based on the information contained in the medical records and patient financial information.

Interrogatory No. 3: Describe in detail how you have notified or informed patients from 201 0 to present that you may elect to file a medical lien for the costs of the patient's medical treatment in lieu of submitting their medical bills for reimbursement to the patient's private health insurance, and/or Medicare, and/or Medicaid for payment.

Answer: MultiCare objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Without waiver of and subject to these objections, Multicare's practice was and is not to file medical service liens regarding privately insured patients. MultiCare has not informed patients in advance that it may elect not to bill Medicare or Medicaid or other government payers.

Interrogatory No. 5 [sic]: Do you contend that medical liens that were recorded on 20 your behalfby Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. from February 1, 2010 to April30, 2013, are valid

liens under Washington Law? 21

22

23

24

25

Answer: MultiCare objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. MultiCare objects to this Interrogatory because it calls for a conclusion of law and because the statement constitutes a vague generalization not subject to a single answer. Without waiver and subject to the objections stated herein, MultiCare answers, yes.


LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Interrogatory No.4 [sic]: In the event you content that liens that were recorded from 2010 to present in the State of Washington on behalf of Multi care as the lien claimant that bear the signature of Ralph Wadsworth or an electronic or some other facsimile version of Ralph Wadworth's signature, and bear the signature and notary stamp of Rebecca A. Rohlke constitute legal, valid and/or enforceable liens, please provide the following information:

a. Describe in detail all facts that support or tend to support this contention; b. Identify all persons with knowledge of facts that support or tend to support this

contention, including a brief description of the facts known to each person identified; and

c. Identify all documents that support or tend to support this contention.

Answer: MultiCare objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. MultiCare further objects that part a. of this question calls for information that is privileged under the work product doctrine. Without waiving these objections and subject to them, with respect to part b. the following persons may have and documents may contain discoverable information regarding MultiCare's lien claim against the third party or insurer responsible for plaintiffs' injuries: Ralph Wadsworth, Rebecca Rohlke, and the persons responsible for handling the respective third party liability claims. With respect to part c., refer to the notice of claims filed on file with the auditor's offices and documents within the possession, custody, or control of plaintiffs, their attorneys, or the third party tortfeasors and their msurers.

15 Request for Production No. 1: Please produce copies of all documents identified in

16

17

18

your response to the preceding interrogatory.

Response: The notices of claim regarding plaintiffs are attached to the complaint in this action. Other documents are equally accessible to plaintiffs as to defendant.

19 Interrogatory No. 5 [sic]: Describe in detail all work that you authorized Hunter

20

21

22

23

Donaldson, L.L.C. to do for you or on yourbehalffrom 2009 to present.

Answer: MultiCare contracted with Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. to assist MultiCare in its recovery of payments on first and third party liability accounts. Please see the contract document previously produced for a more complete description.

24 Request for Production No. 2: Produce copies of all contacts [sic] or agreements between you and Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. that have been in effect at any time over the last

25 five (5) years, including all amendments, addenda, and attachments thereto.


LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Response: MultiCare objects that this Request calls for proprietary and confidential information. Subject to and without waiver of these objections, Multi Care previously provided responsive documents on 11/15/13 and 11/20113 in response to Miesmer v. Hunter Donaldson Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Defendant MultiCare Health Systems, Inc. (MC-00102- 146; MC-000783).

Interrogatory No. 6 [sic]: Describe in detail all investigations, inquiries or other steps taken by you from 2007 to present to determine whether Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. was authorized to do business in the State of Washington.

Answer: MultiCare objects that this Interrogatory assumes the existence of a duty on its part to conduct such an investigation and that Hunter Donaldson's status is relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Without waiver of and subject to this objection, MHS has not conducted any such investigation or inquiry.

Interrogatory No. 7 [sic]: Describe in detail Jason L. Adam's participation in or involvement in the application submitted by Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. 's employee, Rebecca A. Rohlke's, for a notary public license in the State of Washington.

Answer: Jason Adams, who was Multi Care's Vice President of Revenue Cycle at the time, provided Rebecca Rohlke with his home address and endorsed her application for a notary public appointment by stating that Rohlke was not related to him, was a person of integrity and good moral character and capable of performing notarial acts. He asked his subordinates, Koleen Kelley and Susan George, who also had worked with Ms. Rohlke, to do the same.

Interrogatory No.8 [sic]: Identify the positions Melissa A. Blackburn held with you from 2009 to present.

Answer: Melissa A. Duryea (formerly Blackburn) 3/30/06 through 5/26/07 Administrative Assistant 5/27/07 through 8/5/11 Executive Assistant.

Interrogatory No. 9 [sic]: Identify the name, address and phone number of each expert witness you intend to call at trial. For each such expert, state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.

Answer: Multi Care has made no decisions about experts but if it elects to call any it will disclose them in accordance with the case schedule.


LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

Request for Production No. 3: Please produce copies of all reports or opinions prepared by any of the experts you identified in the preceding interrogatory.

Response: See above.

Interrogatory No. 10 [sic]: Please identify any insurance policies under which any insurer may be liable to satisfy part or any judgment which may be entered in this action or to indemnify or reimburse you payments made to satisfy any judgment; and identify any documents affecting coverage (such as denying coverage, extending coverage, or reserving

7 I rights) from or on behalf of any insurer.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Answer: See previously provided responsive documents on 12/27/13 in response to Miesmer v. Hunter Donaldson Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Defendant MultiCare Health Systems, Inc. (MC-1687- 1691).

Request for Production No. 4: Please produce copies all insurance policies identified by you your responses to the interrogatories above, and produce copies of any documents affecting coverage (such as denying coverage, extending coverage, or reserving rights) from or on behalf of any insurer.

Response: See answer to interrogatory number 11.

Request for Production No. 5: Produce copies of all contacts or agreements between you and Ralph Wadsworth, Rebecca Rohlke (aka Rebecca Wadsworth, aka Rebecca Wadsworth Rohlke) that have been in effect at any time over the last seven (7) years, including all amendments, addenda, and attachments thereto.

Response: None.

Request for Production No. 6: Produce copies of any policy manuals, training manuals, policies, emails, protocols or forms MultiCare employees have been required to complete that have been in effect over the last seven (7) years regarding the screening or identification ofthe following:

a. The source of patient injuries; b. Possible third party liability for the patient's injuries; and c. Possible third party insurance that may ultimately pay for a patient's injuries.

PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO MULTI CARE HEALTH SYSTEMS - WITH RESPONSES Page 13 of23

LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Response: MultiCare objects to the extent this Request seeks information that is confidential and proprietary and that is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Without waiver and subject to these objections, MultiCare previously provided responsive documents on 11115/13 in response to Miesmer v. Hunter Donaldson Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Defendant MultiCare Health Systems, Inc. (MC-00147- 170).

Request for Production No. 7: Produce copies of all emails, reports, letters, minutes of any meetings, or other documents from 2008 to present that relate to any proposals, suggestions, reports, studies, recommendations, or authorizations to file medical liens against MultiCare's patients or potential third parties or insurers who may be liable for MultiCare's patients' medical expenses.

Response: MultiCare objects insofar as this Request seeks class discovery in this individual action. MultiCare objects to the extent this Request seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Subject to and without waiver of objections, Multi Care has not identified any responsive documents.

Request for Production No. 8: Produce copies of all emails, reports, letters or other documents from 2008 to present that relate to any proposals, suggestions, reports, studies, recommendations, or authorizations to contract with or hire Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. to file medical liens against MultiCare's patients or potential third parties or third party insurers who may be liable for Multi Care's patients' medical expenses.

Response: MultiCare objects to the extent this Request seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. MultiCare objects insofar as this Request seeks class discovery in this individual action. Without waiving these objections and subject to them, Multi Care has not identified any responsive documents.

Request for Production No. 9: Produce copies of all emails, reports, letters, minutes of any meetings, or other documents from 2009 to present that relate to Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C.'s filing of medical liens against MultiCare's patients or potential third parties or third party insurers who may be liable for Multi Care's patients' medical expenses.

Response: MultiCare objects to the extent this question seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. This request is overly broad and unduly burdensome because MultiCare does not possess reports specific to medical service liens. Without waiving these objections and subject to them, MultiCare will produce responsive


LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

documents relating to medical service liens, subject to protective order and after redaction of information related to absent class members.

Request for Production No. 10: Produce copies of all emails, reports, letters, minutes of meetings or other documents from 2009 to present that relate to Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C.'s collection of monies for the benefit of MultiCare or on behalf of MultiCare, including, but not limited to, accounting reports showing liens filed and monies collected as a result of work performed by Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C.

Response: MultiCare objects insofar as this Request seeks class discovery in this individual action. MultiCare objects to the extent this Request seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. This request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving these objections and subject to them, MultiCare previously provided responsive documents on 11/19/13 in response to Miesmer v. Hunter Donaldson Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Defendant MultiCare Health Systems, Inc. (MC-00173 - 782).

Request for Production No. 11: Produce copies of all emails, reports, letters or other documents from 2009 to present that relate to any changes or increases in MultiCare's collection of monies in cases involving potential third parties or third party insurers who may be liable for Multi Care's patients' medical expenses.

Response: MultiCare objects as this Request seeks class discovery in this individual action. MultiCare objects to the extent this question is vague and unintelligible and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Without waiving these objections and subject to them, MultiCare previously provided responsive documents on 11/19/13 in response to Miesmer v. Hunter Donaldson Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Defendant MultiCare Health Systems, Inc. (MC-00173 - 782) and will produce additional responsive documents, if any, subject to protective order and after redaction of information related to absent class members.

Request for Production No. 12: Produce copies of all documents related to payments or reimbursements made by MultiCare to Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. from 2009 to present.

Response: MultiCare objects to the extent this Request seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Without waiver of and subject to these objections, MultiCare will produce additional responsive documents, if any, subject to protective order and after redaction of information related to absent class members.


LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Request for Production No. 13: Produce copies of all invoices received by MultiCare from Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. from 2009 to present.

Response: MultiCare objects to the extent this Request seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Without waiver of and subject to these objections, MultiCare will produce responsive documents, if any, subject to protective order and after redaction of information related to absent class members.

Request for Production No. 14: Produce copies of all documents related to payments or remittances made by Hunter Donaldson L.L.C. to MultiCare from 2009 to present.

Response: MultiCare objects to the extent this Request seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. MultiCare objects as this Request seeks class discovery in this individual action. Without waiver of and subject to these objections, MultiCare will produce additional responsive documents, if any, subject to protective order and after redaction of information related to absent class members.

Request for Production No. 15: Produce copies of all reports or summaries received by Multicare from Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. that relate in any way to Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. 's collection of revenues from Multi Care's patients or potential third parties or third party insurers who may be liable for Multi Care's patients' medical expenses.

Response: MultiCare objects to the extent this Request seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. MultiCare objects as this Request seeks class discovery in this individual action. Without waiver of and subject to these objections, MultiCare previously provided responsive documents on 11119/13 and 12/27/13 in response to Miesmer v. Hunter Donaldson Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Defendant MultiCare Health Systems, Inc. (MC-00173- 1686) and will produce additional responsive documents, if any, subject to protective order and after redaction of information related to absent class members.

Request for Production No. 16: Please produce copies of all emails, correspondence, communications or other documents sent by you to Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. or received by you from Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. regarding any of the plaintiffs named in the Complaint.


LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Response: MultiCare objects to the extent this Request seeks information protected by the work product or attorney/client privileges. Without waiving this objection and subject to it, MultiCare will produce responsive documents subject to a protective order.

Request for Production No. 17: Please produce copies of all notices of patient rights that you have given to patients from 2010 to present.

Response: MultiCare objects to the extent this Request seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Without waiver of and subject to these objections, MultiCare will produce responsive documents.

Request for Production No. 18: Please produce copies of all notices or agreements 10 regarding a patient's financial responsibility for medical bills incurred that you have given to

patients from 2010 to present. 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Response: MultiCare objects to the extent this Request seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Without waiver of and subject to these objections, MultiCare will produce the financial responsibility agreements executed by the named plaintiffs.

Request for Production No. 19: Please produce copies of all notices you have given to patients from January 1, 2010, to present that inform the patients in any way that you may elect to file a medical lien for the costs of the patient's medical treatment in lieu of submitting the patient's medical bills for reimbursement to the patient's private health insurance, and/or Medicare, and/or Medicaid for payment.

Response: MultiCare objects to the extent this Request seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Without waiver and subject to the objections, see the response to request for production number 18.

Request for Production No. 20: Pursuant to your web page, you state that Multicare participates in the following health insurance plans: Aetna, Amerigroup, ChoiceCare I Humana, Coordinated Care, Cigna, Community Health Plan, First Choice Health, First Health, GreatOWest Healthcare (now part of CIGNA), Group Health Cooperative (participating only for Mary Bridge Children's Hospital), Group Health Options (through First Choice Health), Molina Healthcare of Washington, MultiPlan, Premera Blue Cross, Private Health Care Systems, Regence BlueShield, TriCare, Uniform Medical Plan, United Health care, and Washington State Department of Labor & Industries. With regard to your


LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

contracts and/or agreements with each of these health insurance plans, please provide copies of the portions of your contracts or agreements that allow you to elect to file medical liens for to seek reimbursement for the patients' medical bills in lieu of submitting a the patient's medical bills the patient's health insurance plan:

Response: MultiCare objects to the extent this Request seeks information not. reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this case, is unduly burdensome, and calls for production of proprietary or trade secret information.

Request for Production No. 21: Please provide copies of all IRS 1099 forms that you issued to Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. from 2009 to present.

Response: MultiCare objects that this information is confidential and proprietary and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of and subject to these objections, there are no responsive documents.

Request for Production No. 22: Please produce copies of any assignments of medical liens from you to Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. from 2009 to present.

Response: MultiCare objects that this information is confidential and proprietary and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiver of and subject to these objections, Multi Care answers that it knows of no responsive documents.

Request for Production No. 23: Please produce copies of all correspondence or other documents sent by Jason L. Adams to Hunter Donaldson, defendant Ralph Wadsworth and Defendant Rebecca Rohlke from 2009 to present.

Response: MultiCare objects that this Request is over-broad, burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to a claim or defense in this case and also the extent it seeks information that is proprietary or otherwise confidential. Without waiver of and subject to these objections, MultiCare does not object to production of documents relevant to lien filings. MultiCare previously provided responsive documents on 12/27/13 in response to Miesmer v. Hunter Donaldson Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Defendant MultiCare Health Systems, Inc. (MC-00784- 1686).

Request for Production No. 24: Please produce copies of all correspondence or other documents received by Jason L. Adams from Hunter Donaldson, defendant Ralph Wadsworth and Defendant Rebecca Rohlke from 2009 to present.

PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO MUL TIC ARE HEALTH SYSTEMS - WITH RESPONSES Page 18 of23

LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Response: MultiCare objects that this Request is over-broad, burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence relevant to a claim or defense in this case and also the extent it seeks information that is proprietary or otherwise confidential. Without waiver of and subject to these objections, MultiCare does not object to production of documents concerning lien filings. MultiCare previously provided responsive documents on 12/27/13 in response to Miesmer v. Hunter Donaldson Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Defendant MultiCare Health Systems, Inc. (MC-00784- 1686).

DATED this 30th day .of April, 2013.

THE LAW OFFICES OF WATSON & GALLAGHER, P.S.

By: s/ Thomas F. Gallagher Thomas F. Gallagher, WSBA No. 24199 tom@wglaw .comcastbiz.net Law Offices of Watson & Gallagher PS 3623 S 12th Street Tacoma, WA 98405-2133 Phone: (253) 926-8437 Fax: (253) 301-2167 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA, PLLC

By: s/ Darrell L. Cochran

Darrell L. Cochran, WSBA No. 22851 darrell@pcvalaw .com Loren A. Cochran, WSBA No. 32773 Kevin M. Hastings, WSBA No. 42316 Pfau Cochran V ertetis Amala PLLC 911 Pacific Ave Ste 200 Tacoma, W A 98402-4413 Phone: (253) 777-0799 Fax: (253) 627-0654 Attorneys for Plaintiffs


LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DECLARATION

______________ hereby declares and states as follows:

I am the _________ for defendant Multi Care Health Systems, Inc. in the

above matter, have read the foregoing answers, know the contents thereof, and believe the

same to be true.

I certify under penalty ofpetjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the

foregoing is true and correct.

DATED at ________ this __ day of _____ , 2014.


Printed name: ------------

LAW OFFICES


Seattle, Washington 981 01-1363

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned attorney for the defendant has read the foregoing i errogatories and requests liance with CR 26(g). for production and answers and responses thereto, d

~(t§/ltl


LAW OFFICES



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of petjury under the laws of the State of Washington, that I am now, and at all times material hereto, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, not a party to, nor interested in, the above-entitled action, and competent to be a witness herein. I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading to be served this date, in the manner indicated, to the parties listed below:

Darrell L. Cochran, WSBA #22851 Loren A. Cochran, WSBA #32773 Kevin M. Hastings, WSBA #42316 Pfau Cochran V ertetis Amala, PLLC 911 Pacific Ave, Ste 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 Fax: (253) 627-0654 email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Thomas F. Gallagher, WSBA #24199 Watson & Gallagher 3623 S 12th Street Tacoma, W A 98405 Fax: 253-301-2167 email: [email protected]


Thomas L. Boeder, WSBA #00408 Cori Gordon Moore, WSBA #28649 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Ste 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Fax: (206) 359-9000 [email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants Hunter Donaldson, LLC, Rebecca Rohlke and Ralph Wadsworth

D Hand Delivered D Facsimile [8] U.S. Mail D CMIECF [8] Email

D Hand Delivered D Facsimile [8] U.S. Mail D CM/ECF [8] Email

D Hand Delivered D Facsimile [8] U.S. Mail D CM/ECF [8] Email

Dated this ~y of February, 2014, at Se tt e, Wash·


LAW OFFICES



EXHIBIT 5

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 of 26

www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIERCE

CHRISTINA MIESMER,

NO. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff,

vs. HUNTER DONALDSON, LLC, a California limited liability company; MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM, a Washington nonprofit corporation; REBECCA A. ROHLKE, individually, on behalf of the marital community and as agent of Hunter Donaldson; JOHN DOE ROHLKE, on behalf of the marital community; RALPH WADSWORTH, individually, on behalf of the marital community, and as agent of Hunter Donaldson, and; JANE DOE WADSWORTH, on behalf of the marital community.

Defendants.

COMES NOW Plaintiff Christina Miesmer by and through her attorneys, Darrell L.

Cochran and Pfau, Cochran, Vertetis Amala, PLLC and Thomas F. Gallagher and the Law

Offices of Watson & Gallagher Law, P.S., and hereby file this complaint for damages against

Defendants Hunter Donaldson, LLC, (“Hunter Donaldson”), MultiCare Health System,

E-FILEDIN COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE

PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON

September 04 2013 8:30 AM

KEVIN STOCKCOUNTY CLERK

NO: 13-2-12653-8


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

(“MultiCare”), Rebecca A. Rohlke, John Doe Rohlke, Ralph Wadsworth, and Jane Doe

Wadsworth alleging as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1 A separate lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed related to the

medical services liens, under RCW 60.44 et seq., at issue in this lawsuit. It was originally

filed in state superior court and a motion for injunctive relief was filed seeking a temporary

restraining order and/or injunction to stop Defendants from continuing their unlawful conduct

with respect to the filing and enforcement of legally invalid medical services liens. However,

Defendants removed the proposed class action case to federal court. A motion to remand the

case back to state court has been filed and is presently in front of the court for consideration.

1.2 Despite the existence of the class suit, Defendants have continued to pursue

their invalid liens and even increased their efforts to unlawfully leverage money from auto

collision victims. In this case, Plaintiff Christina Miesmer reached settlement with an

insurance company for a sum of money she received as a result of traumatic injuries suffered

in a motor vehicle collision and receipt of the settlement money has been tied up by

MultiCare and Hunter Donaldson’s illegal lien and by Defendants’ demand for a lien amount

in excess of the 25% of the total recovery, in violation of RCW 60.44.010.

1.3 Because Plaintiff’s family needs the money to which she is legally entitled but

cannot obtain it unless and until the lien is declared invalid, Plaintiff files this action

separately. Assuming the proposed class action is returned to state court, Plaintiff Miesmer’s

case should then be consolidated with the class action.


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

II. WASHINGTON’S MEDICAL LIEN STATUTE, RCW 60.44 ET SEQ.

2.1 Under RCW 60.44.010, a lien for medical services can only be filed by public

and private operators of hospital and ambulance services and every licensed nurse,

practitioner, physician, and surgeon who renders service or transportation and care for a

patient with a traumatic injury as a result of a tort. The lien attaches to a claim or right of

action that the patient has against the tortfeasor responsible for the traumatic injury and/or

his/her insurer for the value of the medical services.

2.2 Under RCW 60.44.020, no person shall be entitled to a medical services lien

unless such person files and records a notice of claim within twenty days after the date of

such injury or receipt of care, or before settlement is accomplished and payment is made to

the injured person.

2.3 Also, in order to be a valid medical lien, a health care provider must, under

RCW 60.44.020, sign the claim and have it lawfully notarized.

2.4 Upon information and belief, Defendant MultiCare authorized Defendant

Hunter Donaldson, a California firm that specializes in collecting third-party liability claims,

to act as its agent and signatory for the purpose of filing medical liens in Pierce County,

Washington.

2.5 Upon information and belief, Defendants Hunter Donaldson, Ralph

Wadsworth, Rebecca A. Rohlke, and MultiCare agreed and acted in concert, on or about

January 2010, to fraudulently register Rebecca A. Rohlke as a Washington State notary

allegedly living in Pierce County when she was, upon information and belief, actually a


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

resident of California and not properly qualified under RCW 42.44.020 to be a Washington

State notary.

2.6 Upon information and belief, Defendants Hunter Donaldson, Rebecca A.

Rohlke, and Ralph Wadsworth falsified and then recorded with the Pierce County Auditor

thousands of medical liens on behalf of Defendant MultiCare by improperly signing and

knowingly using a notary not properly authorized under Washington law.

2.7 Defendants’ deceptive and unlawful medical lien practice has caused great

financial harm to Plaintiff Christina Miesmer by obstructing and delaying the use of her third-

party tortfeasor settlement monies and by demanding payments from Plaintiff in excess of the

statutorily allowed amount via the use of an invalid lien.

2.8 Because Plaintiff Miesmer has a clear legal and equitable right to the money

against which Defendants claim to hold a lien, which is being presently invaded by

Defendants’ actions with regard to the creation and enforcement of an unlawful lien and,

because Defendants’ actions are resulting in actual and substantial injury to Plaintiff Miesmer

by depriving her of access to and use of her money, Plaintiff asks this Court to also grant a

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) stopping Defendants from their continuing efforts to

encumber and extort Plaintiff Miesmer’s third-party settlement recovery.

III. PARTIES

3.1 Plaintiff Christina Miesmer received healthcare services from Defendant

MultiCare in Pierce County for traumatic tort injuries, and was subsequently defrauded by the


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

unlawful lien and lien collection practice of Defendants MultiCare, Hunter Donaldson, and

Rebecca A. Rohlke and Ralph Wadsworth, on behalf of MultiCare and Hunter Donaldson.

3.2 At all times material hereto, Defendant Hunter Donaldson was a foreign

Limited Liability Company based in California doing business in Washington State.

3.3 At all times material hereto, Defendant MultiCare was a non-profit corporation

duly authorized and licensed by the State of Washington to operate healthcare facilities and

provide healthcare services.

3.4 Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto Defendant Rebecca

A. Rohlke was a resident of the State of California, acting as an agent of Hunter Donaldson,

and improperly using a notary public commission for the State of Washington to do business

in Washington on behalf of Defendants Hunter Donaldson and MultiCare.

3.5 Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant John Doe

Rohlke is married to Defendant Rebecca A. Rohlke and together they constitute a marital

community. All actions taken by Defendant Rebecca A. Rohlke as alleged in the Complaint

herein are for the benefit of her marital community.

3.6 Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto Defendant Ralph

Wadsworth was an owner and principal of Defendant Hunter Donaldson and a resident of the

State of California, who improperly created and recorded illegal medical liens for the benefit

of Defendants Hunter Donaldson and MultiCare. Wadsworth now lives in Florida.

3.7 Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Jane Doe

Wadsworth is married to Defendant Ralph Wadsworth and together they constitute a marital


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

community. All actions taken by Defendant Ralph Wadsworth as alleged in the Complaint

herein are for the benefit of his marital community.

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4.1 Plaintiff Christina Miesmer is a resident of Pierce County, Washington.

4.2 Defendant Hunter Donaldson regularly transacts business in Pierce County,

Washington.

4.3 Defendant Rebecca A. Rohlke has notarized and provided a seal for thousands

of liens filed in Pierce County and recorded with the Pierce County Auditor’s Office,

including the two liens filed in this case,1 that were purportedly signed by Defendant Hunter

Donaldson on behalf of Defendant MultiCare. Upon information and belief, Rohlke is

believed to be the daughter of Defendant Ralph Wadsworth.

4.4 Defendant Ralph Wadsworth has executed under oath thousands of liens filed

in Pierce County and recorded with the Pierce County Auditor’s Office, including the two

liens filed in this case,2 that were purportedly signed on behalf of Defendants Hunter

Donaldson and MultiCare. Upon information and belief, Wadsworth is believed to be the

father of Defendant Rebecca Rohlke.

4.5 Defendant MultiCare’s headquarters and its principal place of business were,

and currently are, in Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington.

4.6 The acts giving rise to this complaint occurred in Pierce County, Washington.

1 Attached as Exhibit 1.

2 Id.


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4.7 As such, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to RCW

2.08.010, and venue is proper in this Court pursuant to RCW 4.12.020 and 4.12.025.

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS

5.1 Plaintiff Christina Miesmer received healthcare services from MultiCare for

traumatic injuries caused by a third party tortfeasor on December 3, 2011 in a motor vehicle

collision.

5.2 Plaintiff Miesmer had Molina Healthcare insurance available to pay for

medical treatment, but upon information and belief, Defendants chose not to bill Molina

Healthcare insurance for any of Plaintiff’s medical treatment.

5.3 On or about December 9, 2011 and again on December 3, 2012, Defendants

Multicare and Hunter Donaldson filed Notice of Claims—Medical Services Liens with the

Pierce County Auditor’s Office.3 Upon information and belief, MultiCare authorized Hunter

Donaldson to act as its agent for the purpose of filing a notice of medical lien pursuant to

RCW 60.44.010-020.

5.4 In the notices of liens from both 2011 and 2012, the Claimant is listed as

MultiCare Health System, the patient is Christina Miesmer, and notice is given of the

following: “Claimant provided medical care, items and/or services to Patient, which were

necessary because of injuries allegedly cause by the Tortfeasor. Claimant claims a lien for

reasonable value of the medical care, item and/or services provided to Patient.”4

3 Id.

4 Id.


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5.5 The liens filed against Christina Miesmer and purportedly signed by Hunter

Donaldson on behalf of MultiCare are invalid because they were not properly subscribed by

the claimant or verified before a person authorized to administer oaths as required by RCW

60.44.020.

5.6 Further, Hunter Donaldson is not a recognized claimant under Washington’s

medical lien statute, and therefore its managing partner Ralph Wadsworth’s signature is

insufficient to act as the signature of MultiCare. Moreover, the notary attestation regarding

the signature of Ralph Wadsworth is insufficient to establish that he was authorized to sign

the liens on behalf of Hunter Donaldson.

5.7 Additionally, the notary, Rebecca A. Rohlke, also a Hunter Donaldson

employee, is not authorized under RCW 42.44.020 to administer oaths in this state because

she is not a resident of Washington, Oregon, or Idaho—rather, she is, and always has been at

all material times, a resident of California.

5.8 Also, the jurat accompanying the attestation of Rebecca A. Rohlke,

purportedly acting as a notary public in and for the State of Washington, is deficient in that it

contains a falsely made sworn statement. While alleging to be made in Pierce County,

Washington, upon information and belief, the sworn statement (ss.) was actually made in the

State of California.

5.9 Additionally, upon information and belief, MultiCare’s Vice President in

charge of Revenue Cycle at the time, Jason Adams, acted in concert with others at MultiCare

including fellow MultiCare employees Koleen Kelley (Executive Assistant to Vice President

of Revenue Cycle) and Susan George (Contract Specialist at MultiCare) and with Defendants


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Rohlke and Hunter Donaldson, to provide false residency information for and falsely endorse

Rohlke as a Washington State resident when she was in fact a California resident.5

5.10 Upon information and belief, Adams fraudulently provided his home address

in Gig Harbor, Washington as Rohlke’s address on Rohlke’s notary application. MultiCare,

Adams, Rohlke and Hunter Donaldson used this false address on Rohlke’s notary application

in order to “establish” Rohlke’s Washington residency.

5.11 With the assistance and concerted action of Defendant MultiCare’s employees

Adams, Kelley and George, Defendant Rohlke fraudulently obtained a commission as a

Washington State notary public when she was in fact at all material times a resident of

California, living in La Habra, California and Fullerton, California.6

5.12 Despite obvious deficiencies and falsities, MultiCare and Hunter Donaldson

used the invalid and fraudulent liens it created and filed to encumber plaintiff’s property

rights with medical liens.

5.13 On or about June 2013, Plaintiff Christina Miesmer agreed to a settlement from

the liable third-party tortfeasor and his insurer. Upon information and belief, Defendants

MultiCare and Hunter Donaldson have sent copies of their invalid liens and made telephone

calls to the insurer insisting that they are entitled to full payment on the invalid liens, in

further violation of RCW 60.40.020.7 As a result of Defendants’ invalid liens and their



7 RCW 60.40.020 provides in pertinent part, “[A]ll the said liens for service rendered to any one person as a result of any one accident or event shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the amount of an award, verdict, report, decision, decree, judgment, or settlement. MultiCare and Hunter Donaldson’s lien against Miesmer is for 41.7814% of her total settlement amount.


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

representations to the liable tortfeasors’ insurer, Plaintiff Miesmer was issued a settlement

check from the insurer contingent upon the “payor” of the check including Hunter

Donaldson’s name, as well as her own.8 Because both Hunter Donaldson and Christina

Miesmer must sign the check to make it redeemable, the Plaintiff is not able to cash or deposit

the check or otherwise use the settlement money. Instead Plaintiff has been forced to hold the

check, and has been deprived of its benefit as a result, pending this Court’s determination

regarding the validity of Defendants’ lien and of Defendants’ unlawful actions.

5.14 Hunter Donaldson has utilized this same unlawful and misleading lien practice

to obtain third-party settlement funds from thousands of MultiCare’s patients.

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION

a. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Against MultiCare and Hunter Donaldson

6.1 Plaintiff re-alleges the paragraphs set forth above and below.

6.2 Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that Defendants MultiCare and Hunter

Donaldson’s lien enforcement practices violate Washington law. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks

an order from the Court enjoining Defendant MultiCare from retaining third-party collector

Hunter Donaldson to execute and collect on the medical liens at issue in this case when

Defendants have used and continue to use invalid, deceptive and/or fraudulent lien practices

to threaten and to deprive Plaintiff from her property and her property interests. Additionally,

Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court enjoining Defendants Hunter Donaldson and

MultiCare from enforcing or collecting on the liens at issue in this case which have not been



www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

properly created, subscribed, and notarized as required under RCW 60.44.020, and have been

fraudulently filed with the Pierce County Auditor’s Office.

b. Consumer Protection Act Against MultiCare and Hunter Donaldson

6.3 Plaintiffs re-allege the paragraphs set forth above and below.

6.4 “Because statutes creating liens are in derogation of common law, a person

claiming the benefit of a statutory lien carries the burden of proving the right to it. This

burden includes a showing that the lien claimant has ‘complied strictly with the provisions of

the law that created it.’” Pearl v. Greenlee, 76 Wn. App. 338, 340-41 (1994), citing Pacific

Erectors, Inc. v. Gall Landau Young Constr. Co., 62 Wn. App. 158, 168 (1991).

6.5 RCW 60.44.010 provides, “Every operator . . . of an ambulance service or of

a hospital, and every duly licensed nurse, practitioner, physician, and surgeon rendering

service, or transportation and care, for any person who has received a traumatic injury and

which is rendered by reason thereof shall have a lien upon any claim, right of action, and/or

money to which such person is entitled.” (emphasis added).

6.6 RCW 60.44.020 provides, all medical lien claims “shall be subscribed by the

claimant and verified by a person authorized to administer oaths." RCW 42.44.020 requires,

among other things, all persons authorized to administer oaths as a notary public either (1)

reside in Washington State, or (2) reside in an adjoining state if they are regularly employed

in Washington or carry on business in Washington State.

6.7 Plaintiff suffered traumatic injuries as a result of a third party tortfeasor’s

negligence and received health care services from MultiCare. Plaintiff Miesmer had Molina

Healthcare insurance available to pay for medical treatment, but upon information and belief,


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Defendants chose not to bill Molina Healthcare insurance for any of Plaintiff’s medical

treatment.

6.8 MultiCare retained Hunter Donaldson, a California firm specializing in

collections, to execute, record, and collect on its statutory medical liens for services rendered

to Plaintiffs. Hunter Donaldson failed to properly notarize and subscribe the assigned liens by

falsifying the notarization. Yet, despite these obvious deficiencies, Hunter Donaldson used

invalid liens to encumber plaintiff’s claim and right of action. Moreover, Hunter Donaldson

threatened to initiate litigation if Plaintiff refused to make payment on the invalid liens.

6.9 In Klem v. Washington Mut. Bank, 176 Wn.2d 771, 795, 295 P.3d 1179, 1191

(2013), the Washington State Supreme Court stated that, “a false notarization is a crime and

undermines the integrity of our institutions upon which all must rely upon the faithful

fulfillment of the notary’s oath.” The Klem Court stated unequivocally that the practice of

falsely notarizing a notice of nonjudicial foreclosure sale is an unfair or deceptive practice

under the CPA. Id. at 1192.

6.10 MultiCare and Hunter Donaldson, by implementing a practice of falsely

notarizing medical liens, have also engaged in a pattern of unfair, deceptive, and unlawful

conduct pursuant to a common policy that has the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of

the public, similar to that in Klem v. Washington Mut. Bank. Id. Moreover, upon information

and belief, MultiCare and Hunter Donaldson have made substantial profits by utilizing the

unfair and deceptive lien practice described herein.

6.11 The acts and omissions of defendants MultiCare and Hunter Donaldson as

described herein, and as will be further developed in discovery, were and are unfair and


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

deceptive acts or practices in trade and commerce, and affect the public interest. As such,

the acts and omissions of MultiCare and Hunter Donaldson as described herein, and as will be

further developed in discovery, are in violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act,

RCW 19.86 et seq., entitling the plaintiff to treble damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs

of suit, and such other relief as may be permitted by statute.

6.12 In Mason v. Mortgage Am., Inc., 114 Wn.2d 842, 792 P.2d 142, 148 (1990),

the Washington State Supreme Court stated, “A loss of use of property which is causally

related to an unfair or deceptive act or practice is sufficient injury to constitute the fourth

element of a Consumer Protection Act violation.” Here, Defendants’ MultiCare and Hunter

Donaldson’s unlawful lien practices have directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiff’s

property interests by fraudulently encumbering, obstructing and delaying Plaintiff’s recovery,

resulting in a loss of the use of her property.

c. Unlawful Operating of a Collection Agency and Violation of the Washington

State Consumer Protection Act Against Hunter Donaldson

6.13 RCW 19.16.100(2)(a) defines a collection agency as any person directly or

indirectly engaged in soliciting claims for collection, or collecting or attempting to collect

claims owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another person.

6.14 By executing, recording and collecting on medical liens due to MultiCare,

Hunter Donaldson is directly and indirectly collecting and attempting to collect claims owed

or due or asserted to be owed or due to MultiCare.

6.15 Further, RCW 19.16.110 directs that no person shall act, assume to act, or

advertise as a collection agency or out-of-state collection agency as defined in this chapter,


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

except as authorized by this chapter, without first having applied for and obtained a license

from the director of licensing.

6.16 Upon information and belief, Hunter Donaldson has not applied for or obtained

a license from the director of licensing despite the fact that it regularly executes, records and

collects claims owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to MultiCare.

6.17 Despite neither applying for nor obtaining a license as a collection agency,

Hunter Donaldson’s principal owner Ralph Wadsworth had submitted a declaration to the

Federal Court in Tacoma stating that Hunter Donaldson has already collected in excess of $5

million on liens filed on behalf of Defendant MultiCare.9

6.18 Under RCW 19.16.440, the unlawful operation of a collection agency or out-

of-state collection agency without a license is declared to be a violation of the Washington

State Consumer Protection Act under RCW 19.86.

6.19 Therefore, by collecting and attempting to collect claims owed or due or

asserted to be owed or due to MultiCare without a license from the director of licensing,

Hunter Donaldson is in violation of RCW 19.16.440 and the Washington State Consumer

Protection Act, RCW 19.86.

6.20 Similar to ¶6.12, Defendant Hunter Donaldson’s unlawful operation of a

collection agency or an out-of-state collection agency by collecting and attempting to collect

claims owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to MultiCare without a license or unlawful

lien has directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiff’s property interests by fraudulently



www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

encumbering, obstructing and delaying Plaintiff’s recovery, resulting in a loss of the use of

her property.

d. Negligence Against MultiCare


6.22 Plaintiff received health care treatment from MultiCare. As such, a special

relationship exists between MultiCare and the plaintiff. This special relationship created

duties of reasonable care, which are owed by MultiCare to Plaintiff. Additionally, if Hunter

Donaldson was acting as MultiCare’s agent, then its acts and omissions are imputed to

MultiCare.

6.23 MultiCare has a duty not to retain an unauthorized, unregistered, unlicensed

entity, such as Hunter Donaldson, to execute, record and collect on its statutory liens.

Furthermore, MultiCare has a duty not to assert a lien against Plaintiff’s third-party recovery

which has been deceptively and/or fraudulently obtained.

6.24 The acts and omissions of MultiCare and Hunter Donaldson as described

herein, and as will be further developed in discovery, were negligent and in violation of its

duty to exercise reasonable care towards Plaintiff. For instance, MultiCare breached its duty

of care by retaining Hunter Donaldson, an unauthorized, unregistered, unlicensed entity to

execute, record, and collect for medical services rendered to Plaintiff. Hunter Donaldson

breached the defendants’ duty of care by misrepresenting its credentials and asserting invalid

liens against the plaintiff’s third-party recovery.

6.25 Furthermore, upon information and belief, Defendant MultiCare knew that

under RCW 60.44.010, all medical service liens against Christina Miesmer’s right of recovery


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

could not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of Plaintiff Miesmer’s settlement amount. Yet,

MultiCare’s liens amounted to more than 40% of Plaintiff’s total settlement amount. By

doing so, Defendant MultiCare is negligently attempting to collect more than 25% of Plaintiff

Miesmer’s settlement amount in violation of 60.44.010.

6.26 As a direct and proximate result of Defendant MultiCare’s acts and omissions,

Plaintiff’s claim and right of action were negligently and/or fraudulently encumbered,

obstructed and delayed. Plaintiff also suffered unnecessary stress and anxiety due to these

unlawful practices.

e. Negligence Against Hunter Donaldson


6.28 Hunter Donaldson owed a duty to be truthful and not misleading to Plaintiff

when it recorded liens under RCW 60.44.010 to recover portions of third-party recovery in

satisfaction of purported medical services liens it was filing on behalf of MultiCare.

6.29 The liens Hunter Donaldson recorded were not lawfully subscribed, verified,

or notarized, and were therefore invalid and unenforceable.

6.30 Hunter Donaldson knew or should have known that the information supplied to

Plaintiff, as well as to the county where the liens were recorded, regarding the liens and

MultiCare’s purported rights thereunder was false. Moreover, Hunter Donaldson knew or

should have known that its liens were invalid and therefore unenforceable and void.

6.31 Despite these obvious deficiencies, Hunter Donaldson represented to Plaintiff,

as well as to the county agency where the liens were officially recorded, that it had executed


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

valid liens and enforceable liens on behalf of MultiCare, and demanded payment on behalf of

MultiCare from her third-party recovery with threat of litigation.

6.32 Furthermore, upon information and belief, Defendant Hunter Donaldson knew

that under RCW 60.44.010, all medical service liens against Christina Miesmer’s right of

recovery could not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of Plaintiff Miesmer’s settlement amount.

Yet, Hunter Donaldson placed liens on behalf of MultiCare amounting to more than 40% of

Plaintiff’s total settlement amount. By doing so, Defendant Hunter Donaldson is negligently

attempting to collect more than 25% of Plaintiff Miesmer’s settlement amount in violation of

60.44.010.

6.33 As a direct and proximate result of Hunter Donaldson’s acts and omissions

described herein, Plaintiff has suffered property damages in encumbering of her claim and

right of action and the loss opportunity of using the money from the third-party settlement.

Plaintiff also suffered unnecessary stress, anxiety and emotional distress due to these unlawful

practices.

f. Fraud


6.35 Defendants are liable for fraud because they have represented and continue to

affirmatively represent to Plaintiff that they possess valid medical liens against her third-party

settlement recovery, despite knowing that their liens are invalid, or at the very least, recklessly

and carelessly failing to ascertain the fact that the liens are invalid.

6.36 Furthermore, upon information and belief, Defendants MultiCare and Hunter

Donaldson knew that under RCW 60.44.010, all medical service liens against Christina


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Miesmer’s right of recovery could not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of Plaintiff Miesmer’s

settlement amount. Yet, MultiCare and Hunter Donaldson placed liens amounting to more

than 40% of Plaintiff’s total settlement amount. Further, Defendants MultiCare and Hunter

Donaldson are affirmatively representing to Plaintiff that they are entitled to collect more than

25% of Plaintiff Miesmer’s settlement, despite knowing, or at the very least, recklessly and

carelessly failing to ascertain that this is in violation of 60.44.010.

6.37 Defendants represented and continue to represent to Plaintiff by written and

verbal statements that they possess valid medical liens against her third-party settlement

recovery, and that payment is therefore required once the third-party liability claim was

resolved.

6.38 Plaintiff has relied upon these representations of Defendants, and has been

deprived of the use of substantial portions of her third-party recovery because of the invalid

and fraudulent liens.

6.39 These representations were material, false, and misleading because Plaintiff

would have used the money from the third-party recovery if she knew that Defendants’ liens

were invalid.

6.40 Defendants knew these representations were false and misleading, because

they knew their liens were invalid under Washington law, or at the very least, recklessly and

carelessly failed to ascertain the fact that their liens were invalid.

6.41 Defendants made these representations and continue to make these

representations with the intent of inducing Plaintiff to rely on the representations so she will

pay them a portion of her third-party recovery.


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6.42 Plaintiff has reasonably relied on these representations, because Defendants

misrepresented themselves as being in possession of valid medical liens and further

misrepresenting the percentage of settlement amounts the Defendants are entitled to under

60.44.010. If Plaintiff knew these representations were false, she would have used the money

from her third-party recovery.

6.43 The reliance of Plaintiff was reasonable and justified because she did not know

that Defendants’ medical liens were invalid or that the amounts demanded by Defendants

were in violation of RCW 60.44.010. Given the superior and unique knowledge possessed

and exclusively held by Defendants about the validity of the liens and Washington law,

Plaintiff reasonably and rightfully relied upon these representations by Defendants.

6.44 Plaintiff acted to her detriment in relying upon the representations by

Defendants when held onto a substantial portion of her third-party recovery for the repayment

of these invalid liens.

6.45 As a direct and proximate result of these fraudulent representations by

Defendants, Plaintiff suffered damages as described more fully herein.

g. Conspiracy


6.47 Upon information and belief, Defendants MultiCare, Hunter Donaldson, Ralph

Wadsworth, and Rebecca A. Rohlke agreed and acted in concert, on or about January 2010, to

fraudulently register Rebecca A. Rohlke as a Washington State notary allegedly living in

Pierce County when she was, upon information and belief, actually a resident of California

and not properly qualified under RCW 42.44.020 to be a Washington State notary.


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Wadsworth, and Rebecca A. Rohlke agreed and acted in concert to create unlawful and

improper medical liens, with Rebecca A. Rohlke improperly acting as a Washington State

notary, against Plaintiff’s property and/or right of recovery.


Wadsworth, and Rebecca A. Rohlke agreed and acted in concert to record in the county

auditor’s office these unlawful and improper medical liens against Plaintiff’s right of recovery

for the purpose of depriving Plaintiff of her property.

6.50 Defendants MultiCare, Hunter Donaldson, Ralph Wadsworth, and Rebecca A.

Rohlke agreed and acted in concert to encumber and/or deprive Plaintiff of valuable property

through the use of unlawful and improper medical liens.

6.51 Furthermore, upon information and belief, Defendants Hunter Donaldson and

MultiCare knew that under RCW 60.44.010, all medical service liens against Christina


settlement amount. Yet, Hunter Donaldson and MultiCare agreed and acted on in concert to

levy liens that amounted to more than 40% of Plaintiff’s total settlement amount in violation

of 60.44.010, further encumbering and depriving Plaintiff Miesmer of valuable property.

6.52 Through its actions, Defendants MultiCare, Hunter Donaldson, Ralph

Wadsworth, and Rebecca A. Rohlke have successfully encumbered Plaintiff’s valuable

property right.

6.53 As a direct and proximate result of their agreed and concerted actions,

Defendants MultiCare, Hunter Donaldson, Ralph Wadsworth and Rebecca A. Rohlke have


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

damaged Plaintiff and attempted to financially reward themselves by attempting to unlawfully

gain thousands of dollars obtained through the creation and recording of improper and

unlawful medical liens.

6.54 Based on these actions, Defendants MultiCare, Hunter Donaldson, Ralph

Wadsworth and Rebecca A. Rohlke are liable for civil conspiracy.

h. Intentional Interference with a Contractual Relationship


6.56 In Washington, a claim of intentional interference requires: (1) the existence of

a valid contractual relationship of which the defendant has knowledge, (2) intentional

interference with an improper motive or by improper means that causes breach or termination

of the contractual relationship, and (3) resultant damage. Elcon Const., Inc. v. Eastern

Washington University, 174 Wn.2d 157 (2012).

6.57 In June 2013, Plaintiff Christina Miesmer agreed to a settlement with the liable

third-party tortfeasor and his insurer.

6.58 The settlement agreement constituted a valid contractual relationship between

Plaintiff Miesmer and the tortfeasor’s insurer, in which Miesmer agreed to fully release all of

her claims against the tortfeasor and hold harmless the insurer in exchange for the tortfeasor’s

$25,000.00 policy limit.

6.59 Upon information and belief, Defendant Hunter Donaldson contacted the

tortfeasor’s insurer after the settlement agreement had been consented to by both Plaintiff

Miesmer and the tortfeasor’s insurer, but prior to the payment of consideration to the plaintiff.


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6.60 Upon information and belief, Defendant Hunter Donaldson represented to the

tortfearsor’s insurer that MultiCare and Hunter Donaldson held a valid medical services lien

under RCW 60.44 et seq.

6.61 Upon information and belief, Defendant Hunter Donaldson further represented

to the tortfeasor’s insurer that because of their allegedly valid medical services lien,

MultiCare and Hunter Donaldson were entitled to $10,445.35 of the $25,000.00 settlement

agreement the insurer had reached with Plaintiff Miesmer.

6.62 Upon information and belief, Defendant Hunter Donaldson knew the liens it

placed on Christina Miesmer’s right of recovery were invalid because: a) the liens were not

properly subscribed by the claimant MultiCare, but instead MultiCare conspired with Hunter

Donaldson to have Hunter Donaldson improperly sign the claims and unlawfully act as its lien

enforcer; b) the liens were verified and notarized fraudulently by Rebecca Rohlke, an

individual not authorized to administer oaths as required by RCW 60.44.020; c) the liens were

signed by Hunter Donaldson’s managing partner Ralph Wadsworth, whose signature is

insufficient in place of the claimant, MultiCare; d) the liens contained an insufficient notary

attestation necessary to establish that Ralph Wadsworth was authorized to sign the liens on

behalf of Hunter Donaldson or MultiCare, and; e) the jurat accompanying the attestation of

Rebecca A. Rohlke on both liens, purportedly acting as a valid notary public in and for the

State of Washington, is deficient in that it contains the falsely made sworn statement that the

notarization took place in Pierce County, Washington when it was actually made in the State

of California.


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6.63 Furthermore, upon information and belief, Defendants Hunter Donaldson and

MultiCare knew that under RCW 60.44.010, all medical service liens against Christina


settlement amount. Yet, Hunter Donaldson and MultiCare’s liens alone amounted to more

than 40% of Plaintiff’s total settlement amount.

6.64 Upon information and belief, Defendant Hunter Donaldson’s contact with the

tortfeasor’s insurer induced the insurer to materially breach the valid contract between the

insurer and Plaintiff Miesmer by falsely insisting that Hunter Donaldson and MultiCare held a

valid medical services lien against Plaintiff Miesmer’s right of recovery. As a result of

Hunter Donaldson’s false representations to the tortfeasor’s insurer, the insurer insisted on

issuing a check made payable in part to Hunter Donaldson, making it unusable to Plaintiff

Miesmer, thus breaching the insurer’s promise of consideration in exchange for the release

and hold harmless agreement.

6.65 As a direct and proximate result of Hunter Donaldson’s intentional interference

with the tortfeasor’s insurer for the improper motive of collecting money from Plaintiff’s

Miesmer settlement amount without a valid medical services lien and for an amount over 25%

of the full amount of the award, the tortfeasor’s insurer materially breached its otherwise valid

contract with Miesmer by issuing an unredeemable form of consideration.

6.66 Also as a direct and proximate result of Hunter Donaldson’s intentional

interference with the tortfeasor’s insurer, Plaintiff Miesmer has been damaged by being

denied the benefit of the $10,445.35 bargain she made with the tortfeasor’s insurer.


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

VII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

7.1 Plaintiffs reserve the right to assert additional claims as may be appropriate

following further investigation and discovery.

VIII. JURY DEMAND

8.1 Under the Washington State Civil Rules, Plaintiffs demand that this action be

tried before a jury.

IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request a judgment against Defendants Hunter Donaldson,

Rebecca A. Rohlke, Ralph Wadsworth, and MultiCare:

1. Declaratory Relief. A judicial declaration that MultiCare and Hunter

Donaldson’s collection and lien enforcement practice on behalf of MultiCare violates

Washington law, and that the liens recorded by Defendants against Plaintiff Christina

Miesmer’s right of action and/or money obtained from a third party tortfeasor violate

Washington law and should be declared null and void.

2. Injunctive Relief. A judicial order enjoining MultiCare and Hunter

Donaldson’s collection and lien enforcement practice on behalf of MultiCare which violates

Washington law, as well as a judicial order enjoining Defendants from re-filing or re-

recording existing liens which violate Washington law and under RCW 60.44.020, are based

upon injuries or care where twenty-days have passed or settlement has already been

accomplished and payment has been made to the injured person.


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3. Equitable Relief. Equitable relief in the form of removing all invalid and

unlawful liens filed by Hunter Donaldson and MultiCare against Plaintiff’s right of recovery.

4. Damages. Damages in the amount to be proven at trial including but not

limited to the loss of use of money improperly encumbered as a result of Hunter Donaldson

and MultiCare’s lien collection practices, as well as the damages caused by Hunter

Donaldson’s unlawful threats of litigation based on fraudulent liens.

5. Exemplary Damages. Damages and such other relief, such as treble damages

up to $25,000 per claimant under RCW 19.86.090.

6. Punitive Damages against Hunter Donaldson, Rebecca A. Rohlke, and Ralph

Wadsworth. For punitive damages against California defendants Hunter Donaldson, Rohlke

and Wadsworth as allowed by California law.

7. Fees and Cost. The costs of bringing this suit, including but not limited to

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under RCW 19.86.090 and RCW 19.16.440.

8. For such other relief that the Court deems just and proper.

//

//

//

//

//

//


www.pcvalaw.com



Phone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DATED this 3rd day of September, 2013.


By:

Darrell L. Cochran, WSBA No. 22851

[email protected]

Loren A. Cochran, WSBA No. 32773

[email protected]

Kevin M. Hastings, WSBA No. 42316

[email protected]


THE LAW OFFICES OF WATSON

& GALLAGHER, P.S.

By:

Thomas F. Gallagher, WSBA No. 24199

[email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiffs

4838-0258-0245, v. 1

/s/ Thomas F. Gallagher

EXHIBIT 6

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1N THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

FOR PIERCE COUNTY

VELMA WALKER, individually and as aclass representative; JAMES STUTZ,individually and as a class representative,KARL WALTHALL, individually and as aclass representative; GINA CICHON,individually and as a class representative,and; MELANIE SMALLWOOD,individually and as class representative,

Plaintiff,

VS.

HUNTER DONALDSON, LLC, a Californialimited liability company; MULTICAREHEALTH SYSTEM, a Washington nonprofitcorporation; REBECCA A. ROHLKE,individually, on behalf of the maritalcommunity and as agent of HunterDonaldson; JOHN DOE ROHLKE, on behalfof the marital community; RALPHWADSWORTH, individually, on behalf ofthe marital community, and as agent ofHunter Donaldson, and; JANE DOEWADSWORTH, on behalf of the maritalcommunity,

Defendants.

NO. 13-2-08746-0

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUESTS FORADMISSION DIRECTED TO MULTICAREHEALTH SYSTEMS WITHOBJECTIONS AND RESPONSESTHERETO

In accordance with CR 36, you are directed to respond to the following Requests for

Admission within forty (40) days of their service upon you.

PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS WITHOBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES THERETOPage 1 of 16

1

2

K~

4

5

6

8

9

Zo

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

r~i7

21

22

23

24

25

INSTRUCTIONS -- REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

(1) Each matter for which admission is sought shall be deemed admitted unless denied

or objected to as provided for in CR 36.

(2) Answers must be signed by the party making them under oath.

(3) If you have an attorney, any objections to requested admissions must be signed by

the attorney.

(4) All responses must be certified by the lawyer pursuant to CR 26(g).

(5) If an objection is served, the reasons for such objection must be stated.

(6) Each response must admit or deny the matter asserted or set forth in detail why the

answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny.

(7) Any denial must fairly meet the substance of the requested admission.

(8) You must qualify your answer or deny only so much of the request as good faith

requires and specify so much as is true and deny or qualify the remainder.

DEFINITIONS

1. The term "MultiCare" or "Multicare" refers to defendant MultiCare Health System,

its officers, employees, agents and attorneys and Multicare's wholly owned

subsidiaries, Medis Corporation, and Multicare Consulting Services, L.L.C., and their

officers, employees, agents and attorneys.

2. The term "Hunter Donaldson" or Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. refers to defendant

Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. and its officers, employees, agents and attorney.

3. The term "the Complaint" or "plaintiffs' Complaint" refers to plaintiffs' Complaint

that was served upon you contemporaneous with these requests for admission.


1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DATED this day of , 2013.

THE LAW OFFICES OFWATSON & GALLAGHER, P.S.

s/ Thomas F. GallagherThomas F. Gallagher, WSBA No. 24199tom@wglaw. comcastbiz.netAttorneys for Plaintiffs


By: s/Darrell L. Cochran

Darrell L. Cochran, WSBA No. 22851darrell c ,pcvalaw.comLoren A. Cochran, WSBA No. 32773Kevin M. Hastings, WSBA No. 42316Attorneys for Plaintiffs


1

2

3

4

5

6

s

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Zs

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

MultiCare Health System ("MultiCare") objects to these requests and accompanying

instructions to the extent that they are inconsistent with the obligations imposed by Civil

Rules 26 and 36 and specifically to the extent that they call for MultiCare to admit legal

conclusions or matters not relevant to a claim or defense in the matter or calls for disclosure

of privileged information.

Without waiver of and subject to these objections, MultiCare responds as follows:

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 1: Admit that prior to the date of service of the

Summons and Complaint herein, that defendant Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. had not registered

with the Washington Secretary of State to do business in the State of Washington.

RESPONSE: Admit Deny

MultiCare cannot truthfully answer because it has no knowledge as to whether Hunter

Donaldson was required to or did register with the Washington Secretary of State to do

business in the State of Washington.


Summons and Complaint herein, that defendant Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. had not obtained

any licenses from any department or agency of the State of Washington.


MultiCare cannot truthfully answer because it has no knowledge as to whether Hunter

Donaldson was required to or did obtain licenses from any department or agency of the State

of Washington.


Summons and Complaint herein, that defendant Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C. had not established

an account with the Washington State Department of Revenue.

RESPONSE:


Admit Deny

1

2

3

4

5

6

~~

9

10

11

12

13

MultiCare cannot truthfully answer because it has no knowledge as to whether HunterDonaldson was required to or did establish an account with the Washington State Departmentof Revenue.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 4: Admit that Hunter Donaldson is not a wholly owned

subsidiary of MultiCare.

RESPONSE: X Admit Deny

'' REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 5: Admit that defendant Hunter Donaldson, L.L.C.

recorded liens on behalf of MultiCare in Pierce County, Washington during the year 2010.


Admit that in some months of 2010 Hunter Donaldson recorded notices of claim ofmedical service liens on behalf of MultiCare.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 6: Admit that Hunter Donaldson recorded liens on

behalf of MultiCare in Pierce County, Washington during the year 2011.

14 RESPONSE:

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Admit Deny

Admit that Hunter Donaldson recorded notices of claim of medical service liens on

behalf of MultiCare in 2011.




Admit that Hunter Donaldson recorded notices of claim of medical service liens on

behalf of MultiCare in 2012.


1

2

3

4

5

6

s

9

Zo

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25




Admit that in some months of 2013 Hunter Donaldson recorded notices of claim ofmedical service liens on behalf of MultiCare.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 9: Admit that Hunter Donaldson had not been assigned

the ownership of any of the lien claims it filed on behalf of MultiCare in Pierce County,

Washington during the year 2010.


REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 10: Admit that Hunter Donaldson had not been

assigned the ownership of any of the lien claims it filed on behalf of MultiCare in Pierce

County, Washington during the year 2011.










REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 13: Admit that Hunter Donaldson employee, Rebecca

Rohlke, was a resident of the State of California during the entirety of the year 2010.

RESPONSE:


Admit Deny

1

2

3

4

5

6

s

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MultiCare ,lacks knowledge of Ms. Rohlke's legal residence but does not have a basisto contest the claim that she was a resident of California.




MultiCare lacks knowledge of Ms. Rohlke's legal residence but does not have a basisto contest the claim that she was a resident of California.


Rohlke, was a resident of the. State of California during the entirety of the year 2012.







REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 17: Admit that since 2010, Hunter Donaldson

employees or agents have represented to MultiCare's patients, their attorneys, or third parties

or third party insurers who may be liable for payment of MultiCare's patients' medical bills,

that Hunter Donaldson is attempting to collect the amounts owed pursuant to liens filed by or

on behalf of MultiCare.


MultiCare lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny this request,

because it concerns the conduct of Hunter Donaldson.



PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS WITHOBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES THERETO

', Yage 7 of 16

1

2

3

4

5

6

a

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Zs

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

or third party insurers who may be liable for payment of MultiCare's patients' medical bills

that Hunter Donaldson is the medical lien recovery agent for MultiCare.






or third party insurers who may be liable for payment of MultiCare's patients' medical bills

that Hunter Donaldson is the recovery center for Tacoma General Hospital.




REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 20: Admit that Hunter Donaldson employees or agents

have directed MutiCare's patients, their attorneys, or third parties or third party insurers who

may be liable for payment of MultiCare's patients' medical bills to pay to Hunter Donaldson

the full amount of medical bills MultiCare claimed were due pursuant to liens Hunter

Donaldson recorded on behalf of MultiCare.


MultiCare's intent and understanding is that the amounts owed pursuant to the medical

service lien statute are subject to a statutory cap and that Hunter Donaldson's practices were

consistent with the statute. Accordingly, this request is denied.


Rohlke, was not a resident of the State of Washington during the year 2010.

RESPONSE:


Admit Deny

1

2

3

4

5

6

s

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Zs

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MultiCare lacks knowledge of Ms. Rohlke's legal residence but does not have a basisto contest the claim that she was not a resident of Washington.

REQiJEST FOR ADMISSION 22: Admit that Hunter Donaldson employee, Rebecca


RESPONSE: :~u~fii Deny











have demanded that plaintiff Velma Walker or her attorneys pay to Hunter Donaldson the full

amount of medical bills MultiCare claimed were due pursuant to liens Hunter Donaldson

recorded on behalf of MultiCare from the proceeds of settlements with third parties or third

party insurers who maybe liable for payment of Velma Walker's medical bills.





1

2

3

4

5

6

s

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


have demanded that plaintiff James Stutz or his attorneys pay to Hunter Donaldson the full



party insurers who maybe liable for payment of James Stutz's medical bills.





have demanded that plaintiff Karl Walthall or his attorneys pay to Hunter Donaldson the full



party insurers who maybe liable for payment of Karl Walthall's medical bills.





have demanded that plaintiff Gina Cichon or her attorneys pay to Hunter Donaldson the full



party insurers who may be liable for payment of Gina Cichon's medical bills.





have demanded that plaintiff Melanie Smallwood or her attorneys pay to Hunter Donaldson

the full amount of medical bills MultiCare claimed were due pursuant to liens Hunter

Donaldson recorded on behalf of MultiCare from the proceeds of settlements with third

parties or third party insurers who may be liable for payment of Melanie Smallwood's

medical bills.


1

2

3

4

s

9

10

11 I

12

13

14

15

16

17

~~

19

20

21

22

23

24

25




REQiJEST FOR ADMISSION 29: Admit that Hunter Donaldson received payment in

full from plaintiff Melanie Smallwood or her attorneys for the amount of medical bills

MultiCare claimed were due pursuant to liens Hunter Donaldson recorded on behalf of

MultiCare.

RESPONSE: Admit X Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 30: Admit that Jason L. Adams was a Multicare

employee in January 2010.


REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 31: Admit that MultiCare employee, Jason L.'Adams,

endorsed defendant Rebecca Rohlke's application for a Washington State Notary license.


Admit that Mr. Adams endorsed Ms. Rohlke's application for a Notary Public I

Appointment.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 32: Admit that MultiCare employee, Jason L. Adams,

endorsed defendant Rebecca Rohlke's application for a Washington State Notary license,

knowing that she was not a resident of Washington State.


Admit that Mr. Adams endorsed Ms. Rohlke's application for a Notary Public

Appointment knowing that she was not a Washington resident.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 33: Admit that MultiCare employee, Jason L. Adams,


knowing she was not a resident of his home at 3011 Wollochet Drive Northwest in Gig

j Harbor, Washington.



2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Admit that Mr. Adams endorsed Ms. Rohlke's application for a Notary Public

Appointment knowing that she was not a resident at his home at 3011 Wollochet Drive

Northwest in Gig Harbor, Washington.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 34: Admit that Koleen Kelley was a MultiCare



REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 35: Admit that Susan George was a MultiCare



REQiIEST FOR ADMISSION 36: Admit that MultiCare employee, Koleen Kelley,




Admit that Ms. Kelly, while a MultiCare employee, endorsed Ms. Rohlke's

application for a Notary Public Appointment knowing that she was not a Washington resident.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 37: Admit that MultiCare employee, Susan George,




Admit that Ms. George, while a MultiCare employee, endorsed Ms. Rohlke's

application for a Notary Public Appointment knowing that she was not a Washington resident.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 38: Admit that Melissa A. Blackburn was a MultiCare


PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS WITHOBJECTIONS AND 12ESPONSES THERETOPage 12 of 16

1

2

3

4

5

6

s

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 39: Admit that MultiCare employee, Melissa A.

Blackburn, notarized defendant Rebecca Rohlke's signature on her application for a

Washington State Notary license, knowing that she was not a resident of Washington State.


MultiCare cannot admit or deny this request because Ms. Blackburn does not recallnotarizing the application nor does she recall Ms. Rohlke.

ANSWERS submitted this °~~ day of February 2014.


Nlicel 1Vladd~ WSBA #8747orne or Defendant MultiCare

1

2

3

4

5

6

s

9

Zo

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

STATE OF WASHINGTON )ss.

COUNTY OF PIERCE )

being first duly sworn on oath, deposes andstates:

That I am the of defendant MultiCare Health Systems, Inc.; that Ihave read and understood the foregoing Requests For Admissions with Answers thereto, andbelieve the same to be true and accurate.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this day of February, 2014.

PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS WITHOBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 'I`HERETOPage 14 of 16

NOTARY PUBLIC in and for theState of WashingtonResiding atMy Commission Expires:

1

2

3

4

5

6

s

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State

of Washington, that I am now, and at all times material hereto, a resident of the State of

Washington, over the age of 18 years, not a party to, nor interested in, the above-entitled

action, and competent to be a witness herein. I caused a true and correct copy of the

foregoing pleading to be served this date, in the manner indicated, to the parties listed below:

Darrell L. Cochran, WSBA #22851Loren A. Cochran, WSBA #32773Kevin M. Hastings, WSBA #42316Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala, PLLC911 Pacific Ave, Ste 200Tacoma, WA 98402Fax: (253) 627-0654email: Darrell(c~pcvalaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Thomas F. Gallagher, WSBA #24199Watson &Gallagher3623 S 12th StreetTacoma, WA 98405Fax: 253-301-2167email: tom cr,wglaw.comcastbiz.net


Thomas L. Boeder, WSBA #00408Cori Gordon Moore, WSBA #28649Perkins Coie LLP1201 Third Avenue, Ste 4900Seattle, WA 98101-3099Fax: (206) 359-9000tboeder~1perkinscoie.comc~moore(a~perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Defendants HunterDonaldson, LLC, Rebecca Rohlke andRalph Wadsworth

❑ Hand Delivered❑ Facsimile❑ U.S. Mail❑ CM/ECFO Email

❑ Hand Delivered❑ Facsimile❑ U.S. Mail❑ CM/ECFD Email

❑ Hand Delivered❑ Facsimile❑ U.S. Mail❑ CM/ECFD Email

Dated this day of February, 2014, at S t e, Washi gton.

erri Downs, Legal Assistant

PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS WITHOBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 'I`HERETOPage 15 of 16