TASKER v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 152 Wn. App. 1011 (2009)

No. 38844-8-II.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two.
Filed: September 9, 2009.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Thurston County, No. 08-2-01337-2, Gary R. Tabor, J., entered July 18, 2008.

Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Penoyar, A.C.J., concurred in by Houghton and Lau, JJ.

Unpublished Opinion
PENOYAR, A.C.J.

After appealing a Department of Health’s (the Department) cease and desist order, Joyce Tasker filed a claim for injunctive relief with the superior court, arguing that the Department’s Law Judge (DLJ) lacked the authority to adjudicate the original dispute. The superior court dismissed Tasker’s claims and she now appeals. We affirm the superior court’s dismissal.

FACTS
In 2005, the Department sent Tasker a notice of intent to issue a cease and desist order, under RCW 18.130.190, for the unlicensed practice of medicine and veterinary medicine.[1] Tasker had been performing electrodermal testing (EDT) on people and animals. The testing consisted of passing an electric charge between a brass rod that the client held, and a probe that Tasker used to touch various acupuncture points on the client. Tasker also tested blood and saliva samples. Then, Tasker diagnosed illnesses and prescribed remedies that she sold to clients.

The Department offered to let Tasker accept the cease and desist order and a $1,000 fine, $600 of which would be deferred if Tasker abided by the order. Tasker declined the offer and requested an adjudicative proceeding to contest the Department’s order. A DLJ conducted a hearing and granted summary judgment in the Department’s favor. The DLJ found that Tasker’s business constituted the unlicensed practice of medicine and veterinary medicine, ordered her to cease and desist, and imposed a $10,000 fine, with $6,000 suspended so long as Tasker complied with the order. Tasker then filed a petition for judicial review. In July 2006, the superior court upheld the DLJ’s order.

After superior court review, Tasker filed a declaratory judgment action against the Department, arguing that the cease and desist order was void and that she did not owe the fine because the DLJ was not authorized to conduct a hearing or issue a cease and desist order. Tasker argued that in her case, only an administrative law judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings could act. The Department moved to dismiss Tasker’s action, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction under the declaratory judgment act, that res judicata barred Tasker’s claim, and that the DLJ had authority to act. The superior court agreed with the Department and dismissed Tasker’s claim on those grounds. Tasker now appeals.[2]

ANALYSIS
In her second complaint, Tasker collaterally attacks the Department order, claiming the DLJ lacked the authority to issue it. She argues that “[the Department] does not have subject matter [jurisdiction] over the Tasker matter because EDT/CED is not `a profession or business for which a license is required.'” Reply Br. at 11. The argument essentially is: “I was not practicing medicine, so the Department has no authority over me.” However, in the underlying case this court found:

Tasker also offered to diagnose conditions using EDT testing. Tasker used the numerical reading from her EDT device to determine if a client was “balanced,” suffered from inflammation of the organ associated with the “meridian” being tested, or suffered from “organ stagnation and degeneration.” She stated on her website that the energy flow measured by her EDT device carries “information about internal organs that can be used in diagnosis.” Like in Pac. Health Ctr., Inc., Tasker used the information obtained from her EDT device to evaluate and identify a client’s medical illnesses or conditions through their “energy signature” and would created a tincture based on the EDT readings and her evaluation. We hold that the ALJ did not err in concluding that Tasker was engaged in the unlicensed practice of medicine and veterinary medicine.

Tasker v. Dep’t of Health, 139 Wn. App. 1041, 2007 WL 1893689 at *7 (citations omitted).

Though Tasker seeks to relitigate the issue, she is bound by our previous decision. The Department had authority to issue its order and Tasker’s claims fail. We affirm the trial court.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

HOUGHTON, J. and LAU, J., concur.