HB 2706
In CommitteeHouse
DSHS tort claims
Creating an administrative process for adjudicating department of children, youth, and families tort claims against the state.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill creates a new administrative claims commission to resolve historical abuse claims against the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) that occurred before 2020, aiming to reduce the state’s projected $1.3–$1.4 billion shortfall in the liability account. It shifts claim resolution from costly court litigation to a streamlined administrative process while preserving the right to appeal to court.
- Creates a new claims commission within the Office of Administrative Hearings to adjudicate historical tort claims (pre-2020) against the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) and its staff.
- Requires claimants to first file with the Office of Risk Management and meet standard claim-filing requirements (RCW 4.92.100/110) before the commission will accept a claim.
- Limits the commission’s jurisdiction to claims involving childhood abuse or neglect that occurred before 2020, following the *H.B.H. v. State* (2019) ruling that expanded state liability.
- Provides sovereign immunity to the state for claims within the commission’s jurisdiction—meaning claimants must use this administrative process and cannot directly sue in court unless they reject the commission’s decision and request a trial de novo.
- Allows claimants who accept the commission’s award to forgo court review, but gives either party the right to appeal to superior court for a new trial within 20 days of the decision.
- Revises multiple statutes to integrate the new commission into existing claims and administrative hearing procedures—including updates to discovery rules, payment processes, and the liability account financing system.
- Repeals RCW 43.19.778 and adds a sunset provision for Section 14 (related to the Risk Management Administration Account), which expires June 30, 2033, with Section 15 taking effect the same date.
Who is affected
- Claimants (formerly injured individuals) — Individuals who believe they were harmed as children while in state care (e.g., foster care, group homes, residential treatment) and wish to file a claim for damages related to abuse or neglect that occurred before 2020. They must first submit a claim to the Office of Risk Management and then may proceed to the new claims commission.
- DCYF employees, volunteers, and officers — State employees, volunteers, and officers of DCYF who are named in claims related to alleged tortious conduct before 2020. They are protected from personal liability if found to have acted within the scope of their duties.
- State agencies (especially DCYF and Enterprise Services) — State agencies (especially DCYF and Enterprise Services) that are responsible for funding premiums and administrative costs related to the liability account and claims process. DCYF is most directly impacted due to the surge in claims.
- Office of Administrative Hearings — The Office of Administrative Hearings, which will host and support the new claims commission—including assigning an administrative law judge as chair—and manage related administrative functions.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
The commission is designed to resolve long-delayed abuse claims more quickly and affordably than litigation, reducing trauma for survivors who have waited years for resolution and avoiding years-long court battles that often retraumatize victims.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3); Sec. 2By centralizing pre-2020 DCYF claims in one streamlined process, the bill reduces administrative burden on courts and state agencies, allowing faster resolution for survivors and freeing up state resources for current child protection services.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2); Sec. 2(3)(a)Claimants retain the right to reject the commission’s award and request a trial de novo in superior court, preserving access to full judicial review and jury trial for those who believe the administrative process failed them.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(6); Sec. 7The 60-day claim-filing requirement (RCW 4.92.110) and tolling of statutes of limitations during that period help preserve evidence and testimony that might otherwise be lost over time, improving claim accuracy.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a); Sec. 9The sunset of the Risk Management Administration Account (Sec. 14) and its replacement with updated funding rules (Sec. 15) may improve long-term fiscal sustainability of the liability system, though this benefit is indirect and uncertain.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 14; Sec. 15
Potential Concerns (5)
Sovereign immunity bars claimants from directly suing the state in court for claims within the commission’s jurisdiction—forcing them into an administrative process with limited discovery and no jury trial, even though the underlying conduct (childhood abuse/neglect) is severe and historically under-investigated.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 2(2)Claimants who accept the commission’s award forfeit all rights to appeal, while the state retains full appeal rights—creating a one-way ratchet that pressures vulnerable victims to accept potentially inadequate compensation without full judicial review.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5); Sec. 2(6)Discovery is severely restricted: only three types of discovery are automatically allowed (examinations, admissions, depositions of parties), and additional discovery (e.g., interrogatories, third-party depositions) is at the sole discretion of the chair—disadvantaging claimants who lack resources to challenge denials.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4)(a)-(b)The bill’s narrow jurisdictional cut-off (pre-2020 claims only) and exclusion of claims involving non-DCYF state facilities (e.g., juvenile detention, mental health hospitals) leaves many survivors of state-caused harm without access to redress—reinforcing systemic gaps in accountability for vulnerable populations.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1); Sec. 1(3)Requiring claimants to first file with the Office of Risk Management—a state agency responsible for defending the state—creates a conflict of interest: victims must submit evidence to the same office that will later negotiate their claim’s value and defend the state’s interests.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3); Sec. 2(3)(a)
Who Is Most Affected
Survivors of childhood abuse/neglect in state care—many of whom are low-income, have disabilities, or face mental health challenges—may receive faster, less adversarial compensation, but are also pressured to accept lower awards due to limited discovery and no jury trial. The process may reduce retraumatization but also risks undercompensation.
DCYF employees and volunteers named in claims gain protection from personal liability and costly legal defense, but may face reputational harm if claims proceed without full public scrutiny. The sovereign immunity shield reduces their legal exposure but may also reduce accountability incentives.
DCYF avoids massive liability payouts by shifting claims to a lower-cost process, stabilizing agency budgets and reducing insurance premiums. However, the state (and thus all taxpayers) remains ultimately liable for settlements—just deferred and minimized.
The Office of Administrative Hearings gains new adjudicative responsibility but faces increased caseload and resource demands. Administrative law judges may gain experience in trauma-informed adjudication, but the commission’s design limits their independence (e.g., chair controls discovery).