DOH Hardship on Licensee

We previously noted that the Department of Health investigators have started taking a hard line in denying extensions when the licensee has only been able to retain counsel shortly before a deadline to respond, claiming it is not really a “hardship upon the licensee” that constitutes “good cause.” 

The other consideration is whether “furnishing in writing a full and complete explanation covering the matter contained in the complaint filed with the disciplining authority” as required under RCW 18.130.180(8), which has no timeframe requirement, falls under RCW 18.130.230.  This latter RCW is what DOH relies on for deadlines.  The statute specifically applies to “documents, records, or other items,” to avoid incurring administrative fines.  The title of the RCW is literally “Production of documents—Administrative fines.”  Can it really apply to the licensee’s written response, too?

Unsurprisingly, DOH includes the following notice to licensees even when “documents, records, or other items” are not being requested:

IMPORTANT NOTICE:

RCW 18.130.230 requires a licensee must respond to this request within twenty-one calendar days of service. If the twenty-one calendar day limit results in a hardship upon the licensee, he or she may request, for good cause, an extension. If a request for an extension is made it will be evaluated to determine the validity of a hardship on the licensee.

Testing this out as a practical matter, however, may not be worth the risk of being charged with unprofessional conduct.