Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
July 12, 2022
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II OLGA KARASEV, No. 56108-5-II
Appellant,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CLARK COLLEGE,
Respondent.
WORSWICK, J. — Olga Karasev was dismissed from the Clark College Nursing Program
for failing to meet the Minimum Pass Policy. She appeals Clark College’s decision to dismiss
her and the trial court’s denial of her motion to supplement the agency record. On appeal, she
argues that (1) Clark College erred in not applying the procedures outlined in former WAC
132N-1251 because her dismissal was disciplinary, (2) even if her dismissal was academic, Clark
College did not provide her with the proper procedure as required by due process, and (3) the
trial court erred in denying her motion to supplement.
We hold that (1) Clark College did not err in not applying the procedures outlined in
former WAC 132N-125, (2) Clark College did not violate Karasev’s due process rights, and
(3) the trial court did not err in denying Karasev’s motion to supplement the agency record. We
affirm.
1 Former WAC 132N-125 was the student code of conduct in effect at the time Karasev was dismissed from the nursing program. In 2021, former WAC 132N-125 was repealed and replaced with WAC 132N-126. Former Chapter WAC 132N-125 repealed by Wash. St. Reg. 97-17-013 (Oct. 24, 2021). No. 56108-5-II
FACTS
I. CLARK COLLEGE EXITS KARASEV FROM THE NURSING PROGRAM
Karasev, a nursing student of Russian heritage, was enrolled in a six-quarter nursing
program at Clark College during the 2018-19 academic year. In her first quarter, Karasev used
unauthorized materials to perform a clinical task in one of her courses, PSYC 122. Clark
College awarded Karasev a failing grade in that course and exited her from the nursing program.2
Karasev appealed and expressed concerns about discrimination by the course instructor. Clark
College conducted an investigation and found that Karasev used unauthorized materials. Clark
College offered Karasev two quarters of conditional remediation, which upon completion would
have allowed Karasev to petition for readmission into the nursing program.
Karasev appealed and reiterated her discrimination concerns, to which the Associate
Dean of Health Services, Jennifer Obbard, responded that under the Clark College’s policy,
“isolated incidents typically do not qualify as harassment.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 80. And,
without evidence, there was no apparent connection between Karasev’s dismissal for using
unauthorized study aids and the instructor’s alleged discrimination.
Karasev eventually accepted Clark College’s offer and participated in the remediation
program. As part of Karasev’s remediation, she signed two documents. First, in the
Remediation/Learning Contract, Karasev agreed “to follow the rules and guidelines outlined in
the Handbook of Policies and Practices for Nursing Students 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.” CP at
79. Second, in a student acknowledgement form, Karasev agreed that she was responsible for
2 The parties refer to this first incident as an “exit,” and the second incident explained below as a “dismissal.”
2 No. 56108-5-II
adhering to the policies in the Handbook of Policies and Practices for Nursing Students (the
Handbook).
Karasev successfully completed her remediation and was granted readmission into the
nursing program in April 2020. As part of the Remediation\Learning Contract, Karasev was
required to participate in a “Success Plan” upon her readmission. CP at 46. Clark College
utilized the success plan because Karasev had demonstrated “unsatisfactory attainment of
specific professional, clinical or course objectives.” CP at 179. Each success plan is tailored to
the student’s specific areas of improvement based on feedback the student had received in the
past. Karasev’s success plan identified that she needed to improve on her professionalism,
preparation for learning, skill development, and reflective thinking. She was also required to
schedule regular meetings with the Department Chair, Angie Bailey, and Obbard.
Karasev did not seek judicial review of her 2019 exit or otherwise contest the terms of
her Remediation\Learning Contract.
II. CLARK COLLEGE DISMISSES KARASEV FROM THE NURSING PROGRAM WITHOUT READMISSION
In July 2020, Karasev failed to achieve a minimum passing score on PSYC 124 quizzes
and was dismissed from the nursing program without an opportunity for readmission. Clark
College’s reason for dismissing Karasev from the nursing program was that she did not receive
the minimum passing score as required by the Minimum Pass Policy & Criteria for Remaining in
Program (the Minimum Pass Policy) contained in the Handbook. The Minimum Pass Policy
required
[(1)] The student must maintain at least a C grade (75%) in each course. . . .
3 No. 56108-5-II
[(2)] A CUMULATIVE score of 75% must be achieved on all examinations (not including the final exam) PRIOR to the inclusion of written assignments to the final course grade. . . .
[(3)] Students MUST pass the final exam with a 75% or greater. Failure to score a minimum of 75% on the final will result in failing of the course.
CP at 178.
PSYC 124 had three required components for grading: (1) a discussion board, (2) two
quizzes, and (3) a reflection paper. Because the Minimum Pass Policy required a minimum
cumulative score of 75% on examinations, Karasev needed a cumulative score of 75% or above
on the quizzes to satisfy the Minimum Pass Policy. Karasev’s cumulative score on the quizzes
was 68.89%.3 Although Karasev’s final grade, after accounting for the discussion board and
reflection paper, was an 84.44%, this was not sufficient to meet the three requirements of the
Minimum Pass Policy. Karasev met two of the three Minimum Pass Policy requirements, but
she needed to meet all three requirements to remain in the program.
The Handbook explained that “[i]f a student who fails a nursing course is readmitted and
fails any additional nursing course, they will be ineligible for readmission to the Nursing
Program.” CP at 184.
Karasev appealed her quiz grade by filing a complaint to Clark College. Karasev alleged
that she did not have time to complete the quiz, and she raised concerns about the lack of
supervision for quizzes and said that other students may have been using unauthorized materials.
The instructor reviewed the grade, declined to adjust it, and referred the appeal to the Associate
3 The class average quiz score was a 92%.
4 No. 56108-5-II
Dean of Health Sciences. Karasev refused to meet with the Associate Dean to discuss her
grades, and the appeal was denied for lack of evidence. The Associate Dean explained:
The appeal is denied based on lack of evidence that the “grade was assigned as the result of arbitrary or capricious application of otherwise valid standards of academic evaluation or to a student’s claim that the instructor has made an arbitrary or capricious decision or taken an arbitrary or capricious action which adversely affects the student’s academic standing” (Clark College Grade Change/Academic Appeal Policy).
The exit from the program without the opportunity for readmission stands per the following policies of Clark College Nursing Program Handbook of Polices & Practices for Nursing Students 2019-2020:
Minimum Pass Policy (p. 34): “A CUMULATIVE score of 75% must be achieved on all examinations (not including the final exam) PRIOR to the inclusion of written assignments to the final course grade”. The minimum score for exams/quizzes was not achieved.
Readmission to Nursing Program (p. 40): “If a student who fails a nursing course is readmitted and fails any additional nursing course, they will be ineligible for readmission to the Nursing Program.” Previous exit: June 2018 [sic]4
CP at 52.
Karasev appealed the decision to the Dean of Business and Health Services. The Dean
denied the appeal, explaining that Karasev signed an acknowledgement form attesting that she was
responsible for reading the Handbook, and she presented no evidence showing that the grade was
arbitrary and capricious. Karasev was dismissed from the nursing program in July.
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Karasev appealed the Dean of Business and Health Sciences’ decision to the superior
court and moved to supplement the administrative record with her own declaration and exhibits
4 Although the decision dates Karasev’s previous exit in 2018, it occurred in June 2019.
5 No. 56108-5-II
A, B, and C. Karasev’s declaration focused on her allegations of discrimination and instances of
other students using unauthorized study aids. She also reiterated much of the evidence already
contained in the record.
Exhibit A to Karasev’s declaration included the occurrence report evidencing her use of
unauthorized materials in her PSYC 122 clinical course. Exhibit B included the syllabus for
PSYC 122, the clinical course for which Karasev used unauthorized materials. And, exhibit C
was an email exchange between Karasev and her PSYC 124 professor, establishing that the
Minimum Pass Policy applied to PSYC 124.
Karasev also moved to supplement the record with her attorney’s declaration and exhibits
A, B, and C. Much of the attorney’s declaration, including exhibits A and B, described google
search results showing that the PSYC 124 questions and answers are accessible online. Exhibit
C included a copy of Clark College’s policy and procedure on discrimination and harassment.
The trial court granted Karasev’s motion to supplement the record with both exhibits C
attached to Karasev’s and her attorney’s declarations, but denied the motion to supplement in all
other regards. The court affirmed Clark College’s dismissal of Karasev from the nursing
program. Karasev filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.
Karasev appeals her dismissal and the trial court’s order denying her motion for
reconsideration to supplement the administrative record.
ANALYSIS
I. DISMISSAL PROCEEDINGS AND DUE PROCESS
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs review of agency action and applies to
state colleges as “agencies.” RCW 34.05.010(2), (7); Arishi v. Wash. State Univ., 196 Wn. App.
6 No. 56108-5-II
878, 884, 385 P.3d 251 (2016). When reviewing an agency decision, we sit in the same position
as the superior court and review the agency’s decision in light of the administrative record.
Foster v. Dep’t of Ecology, 184 Wn.2d 465, 471, 362 P.3d 959 (2015). We review only the
agency’s final decision, not the superior court’s ruling. Marcum v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health
Servs., 172 Wn. App. 546, 559, 290 P.3d 1045 (2012).
We grant relief to a party aggrieved by “other agency action” if the court determines that
the action is (i) unconstitutional, (ii) outside the statutory authority of the agency or the authority
conferred by a provision of law, (iii) arbitrary or capricious, or (iv) taken by persons who were
not properly constituted as agency officials lawfully entitled to take such action. RCW
34.05.570(4).5 The party asserting the invalidity of the agency’s action bears the burden of
proof. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). An agency’s decision is arbitrary and capricious if it is willful,
unreasoning, and disregards or does not consider the facts and circumstances underlying the
decision. Stewart v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 162 Wn. App. 266, 273, 252 P.3d 920 (2011).
A. Procedures in Former WAC 132N-125
Karasev argues that Clark College erred by not complying with the procedures outlined
in former WAC 132N-125. We disagree.
5 Karasev argues that the agency action below was an “adjudicative proceeding” subject to the standards of review outlined in RCW 34.05.570(3). Br. of Appellant at 12-16. However, under the APA, an “adjudicative proceeding” means a proceeding before an agency in which an opportunity for hearing before that agency is required by statute or constitutional right before or after the entry of an order by the agency. RCW 34.05.010(1). The APA does not require an adjudicative proceeding for academic decisions regarding academic dismissals. Cf. Nelson v Spokane Cmty. Coll,, 14 Wn. App. 2d 40, 46-47, 469 P3d 317 (2020). Because Karasev’s academic dismissal was not a result of a decision required to be made in an adjudicative proceeding, and because Clark College issued no order, we do not apply RCW 34.05.570(3)’s standards.
7 No. 56108-5-II
Former WAC 132N-125 provided due process requirements for disciplinary appeals.
Former WAC 132N-125-015 (2021). “Disciplinary action” is defined as “the process by which
the student conduct officer imposes discipline against a student for a violation of the student
conduct code.” Former WAC 132N-125-015(13). The student code of conduct prohibits
academic dishonesty, such as cheating, plagiarizing, fabricating data, or other acts of dishonesty,
disruption, harassment, violence, and the like. See Former WAC 132N-125-035. Disciplinary
action does not apply to academic underachievement. See Former WAC 132N-125-035.
In Board of Curators v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 98 S. Ct. 948, 55 L.Ed.2d 124 (1978), the
Supreme Court analyzed the due process required when a graduate student is dismissed from a
public university for academic deficiencies. The Court stated, “‘[m]isconduct is a very different
matter from failure to attain a standard of excellence in studies. A determination as to the fact [at
issue] involves investigation of a quite different kind.’” Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 87 (quoting
Barnard v. Inhabitants of Shelburne, 216 Mass. 19, 22-23, 102 N.E. 1095 (1913)). Moreover,
academic dismissals require “far less stringent procedural requirements” than cases involving
dismissals for misconduct. Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 86.
Here, Karasev’s dismissal was based on her failure to meet the Minimum Pass Policy in
PSYC 124 as outlined in the Handbook. Karasev achieved a cumulative score below the
minimum 75% required to pass the class. Although her cumulative class grade was 84.4%, the
Handbook required that Karasev pass all examinations with a grade above 75%. It was
Karasev’s failure to meet the Minimum Pass Policy that resulted in her dismissal, making the
dismissal academic, and the provisions of former WAC 132N-125 applied only to disciplinary
dismissals. Karasev fails to show she was entitled to the procedures in former WAC 132N-125.
8 No. 56108-5-II
Karasev argues that “[h]ad Clark College truly believed . . . academic performance was
sufficient to warrant her dismissal in 2020, it should have dismissed her on that basis alone.”
Br. of Appellant at 15. The argument fails.
Clark College, in its final decision affirming Karasev’s dismissal, explained that
Karasev’s dismissal was final and without opportunity for readmission. It included the following
portion:
Readmission to Nursing Program (p. 40): “If a student who fails a nursing course is readmitted and fails any additional nursing course, they will be ineligible for readmission to the Nursing Program.” Previous exit: June 2018 [sic]
CP at 52. Karasev cites this portion of the decision to support her claim that she was dismissed
based on her June 2019 exit, causing her 2020 dismissal to be a dismissal for misconduct,
therefore falling under former WAC 132N-125. However, the decision referred to the June 2019
exit to explain the basis for not offering Karasev readmission. Per the readmission policy, a
student who fails for the second time, as Karasev did here, is ineligible for admission.
Karasev also argues that she was not afforded proper procedure under former WAC
132N-125 for her 2019 exit. However, that decision is not subject to judicial review. RCW
34.05.542 states that a petition for judicial review of agency action must be filed within 30 days
after the agency action. The deadline for Karasev to appeal the 2019 exit was October 24, 2019,
which was 30 days after the Associate Dean’s letter. Karasev did not seek judicial review of her
2019 exit, and thus, she may not now seek judicial review more than two years after the filing
deadline. RCW 34.05.542.
9 No. 56108-5-II
Therefore, Karasev fails to meet her burden to show that Clark College erred in not
applying former WAC 132N-125 procedures. In turn, she cannot show that Clark College acted
outside its statutory authority, nor that the action was arbitrary and capricious.
2. Process for Academic Dismissals
Karasev argues that even if her dismissal was academic, Clark College did not provide
her with due process. We disagree.
Fundamentally, due process protects the individual against arbitrary government action
such as denying fundamental procedural fairness. Becker v. Wash. State Univ., 165 Wn. App.
235, 255, 266 P.3d 893 (2011). To be entitled to due process protections under the Fourteenth
Amendment, Karasev must demonstrate that her dismissal deprived her of either property or
liberty. Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 83.
There are distinct differences between a school’s decisions to dismiss a student for
disciplinary versus academic reasons. Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 87. In Horowitz, The Supreme
Court distinguished the amount of procedural safeguarding required when a school makes
academic decisions from safeguards required when making decisions about disciplining a student
for misconduct. Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 86. It reasoned that “far less stringent procedural
requirements” are called for in the case of an academic dismissal. Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 86.
This is because the determination of whether to dismiss a student for academic reasons requires a
comprehensive evaluation of cumulative information not readily adapted for the tools of judicial
decision making. Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 90. Thus, all that is required for an academic dismissal
is notice and careful deliberation and evaluation. Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 85; Becker, 165 Wn.
App. at 255.
10 No. 56108-5-II
Even assuming that Karasev can show a deprivation of a property or liberty interest, she
fails to show that the procedures leading to her dismissal violated her right to procedural due
process. Karasev earned a 68.89% on two of her quizzes, for which the class average was 92%.
She submitted a grade dispute after discussing her quiz performance with her professor, who
found no reason to change Karasev’s grade. Karasev appealed to the Associate Dean but failed
to attend the meeting. Karasev submitted documentation explaining her performance, but the
Associate Dean denied the appeal. Karasev’s appeal was denied again by the Dean because he
found that Karasev had notice of the Minimum Pass Policy, performed below the class average,
and provided no evidence of her allegations that other students had been cheating.6
Moreover, Karasev had notice. Karasev was aware of the school’s policy regarding the
Minimum Pass Policy contained in the Handbook, which she acknowledged that she would read
and understand. The Minimum Pass Policy was also reiterated in the PSYC 124 syllabus, stating
that students were required to pass each exam with a score of 75% or higher to pass the class.
Karasev was also aware of the school’s readmission policy which stated that “[i]f a student who
fails a nursing course is readmitted and fails any additional nursing course, they will be ineligible
for readmission to the Nursing Program.” CP at 184. Not only was Karasev aware of the
school’s Minimum Pass Policy and readmission policy, but she was also aware that she had a
total of two quizzes in PSYC 124. After earning a grade of 68.89% on the first quiz, Karasev
6 In her grade appeal, Karasev stated, “The quizzes are humanly impossible to pass given the short-limited time frame and nature of questions if only using the textbook (the only resource allowed). Students who pass use Google’s search engine or work on them together leaving no fair chance to students who are honest and use only allowed resources.” CP at 59. She is essentially arguing, without evidence, that the only way to pass the quizzes was to cheat.
11 No. 56108-5-II
was put on notice that she was required to earn a grade high enough to meet the minimum
cumulative grade requirement.
Lastly, Karasev was also placed on a success plan after her readmission, which is a tool
utilized by instructors “when a student demonstrates unsatisfactory attainment of specific
professional, clinical or course objectives.” CP at 179. Karasev’s success plan identified that
Karasev needed to improve on her preparation for learning, skill development, and reflective
thinking. The success plan was tailored to Karasev based on feedback she had received in the
past. Thus, Karasev was notified through feedback in the past and through the success plan that
she had not been meeting expectations in her academic performance.
Karasev was also afforded a three-step grade appeal process, for which she was able to
explain her performance. She failed to meet with the Associate Dean despite many opportunities
and invitations to do so. Her grades fell well below the average required passing score. Thus,
Clark College’s decision was careful and deliberate, with ample evidence supporting Karasev’s
dismissal.
Because Karasev fails to show that her due process rights were violated, Clark College’s
decision was not unconstitutional.
Karasev cites to four cases to support her argument that Clark College did not afford her
the required notice for academic dismissal: (1) Board of Curators v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 98
S.Ct. 948, 55 L.Ed.2d 124 (1978); (2) Regents of University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214,
225, 106 S. Ct. 507 88 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1985); (3) Becker v. Washington State University, 165 Wn.
App. 235, 255, 266 P.3d 893 (2011); and (4) Arishi v. Washington State University, 196 Wn.
App. 878, 897, 385 P.3d 251 (2016).
12 No. 56108-5-II
In Horowitz, a medical school student was dismissed during her final year for failure to
meet academic standards. Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 79. The school expressed concern over the
student’s performance after the first year but agreed to advance her to the second and final year
on a probationary basis. Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 81. During her second year, faculty continued to
be dissatisfied and rated her performance as “unsatisfactory.” Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 81. The
school then recommended her dismissal from the program. Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 81. The
student appealed and took oral and practical exams as part of the appeal process. Horowitz, 435
U.S. at 81. After receiving recommendations from other physicians and reports of her negative
rotation reports, the school dismissed Horowitz. Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 81. Horowitz appealed,
and the school affirmed its decision after reviewing the record. Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 81. The
Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Horowitz was afforded her procedural due
process rights. Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 92.
Although the facts in Horowitz differ regarding the number of times the student was
notified that her performance was unsatisfactory, Horowitz does not mandate that a student be
repeatedly told she is failing. As stated above, Karasev was provided the Handbook and all
applicable policies, and she was informed that she had to obtain over 75% on her quizzes.
In Regents, a student was dismissed after failing one examination required to complete
the final two years of the program. Regents, 474 U.S. at 214. After considering the student’s
record, the school voted unanimously to dismiss the student from the program. Regents, 474
U.S. at 216. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the dismissal, holding that the student was
afforded proper procedure because the decision of his dismissal “rested on an academic
13 No. 56108-5-II
judgment . . . viewed against the background of his entire career . . . including his singularly low
score on the [exam].” Regents, 474 U.S. at 227-28.
Karasev highlights the language in Regents where the Supreme Court stated that there
was no evidence that the university’s decision was based in bad faith, and argues that here, there
had to have been an “ulterior motive” for her dismissal, namely the 2019 exiting action. Br. of
Appellant at 24-25. But, as stated above, the 2019 exit was never appealed, and Karasev fails to
show any bad faith on the part of Clark College.
In Becker, a student enrolled in a doctorate program was dismissed because she ignored
deadlines, received negative evaluations about her professionalism and performance, and
received written warnings of dismissals. Becker, 165 Wn. App. at 256. We noted that Becker
had received written reviews and warnings prior to her dismissal, and we held that she had notice
of the dismissal and could not show a due process violation. Becker, 165 Wn. App. at 256. But
Becker does not stand for the proposition that a student must be given multiple written reviews
and warnings to comply with due process notice.
Finally, in Arishi, a student enrolled in a doctorate program was dismissed after being
arrested for having sexual contact with a minor. Arishi, 196 Wn. App. at 891. After learning of
the arrest, the school dismissed the student for violating multiple standards contained in the code
of student conduct. Arishi, 196 Wn. App. at 891. The school offered Arishi an informal hearing
that did not afford him an opportunity to introduce witnesses or documents. Arishi, 196 Wn.
App. at 892. We held that the school violated Arishi’s due process right by not giving him an
opportunity to participate in a full adjudication. Arishi, 196 Wn. App. at 901. But Arishi is
14 No. 56108-5-II
inapplicable here because it concerns a disciplinary dismissal rather than an academic dismissal.
Arishi, 196 Wn. App. at 891.
Because Karasev fails to show that Clark College violated her right to due process, her
dismissal was not unconstitutional.
II. MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
Karasev argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to supplement the agency
record. We disagree.
Courts may supplement the agency record with additional evidence if such evidence
relates to the validity of the agency action at the time it was taken and disputed issues regarding
the unlawfulness of procedure or of decision-making process. RCW 34.05.562(1), (1)(b). We
do not admit new evidence that merely reiterates evidence already contained in the record.
Hunter v. Univ. of Wash., 101 Wn. App. 283, 287 n.1, 2 P.3d 1022 (2000).
We review a trial court’s decision to deny a motion to supplement for abuse of discretion.
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dep’t of Fish and Wildlife, 14 Wn. App. 2d 945, 964, 474 P.3d
1107 (2020). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision is manifestly unreasonable or
exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.” McCoy v. Kent Nursery, Inc., 163
Wn. App. 744, 758, 260 P.3d 967 (2011). The trial court’s decision is manifestly unreasonable if
it adopts a view that no reasonable person would take. Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 677,
684, 132 P.3d 115 (2006). If the trial court’s decision “relies on unsupported facts or applies the
wrong legal standard,” the decision is based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons. Mayer,
156 Wn.2d at 684.
15 No. 56108-5-II
The trial court excluded Karasev’s declaration and exhibits A and B, and the declaration
of her attorney and exhibits A and B. Both declarations and excluded exhibits introduced
evidence of Karasev’s exit in 2019, which is not the subject of litigation here. As discussed,
Karasev did not seek judicial review of her 2019 exit, and thus, she may not now seek judicial
review more than two years after the filing deadline. RCW 34.05.542.7 Because the evidence
Karasev sought to introduce does not relate to the present dispute, nor does it go to the validity of
the agency’s decision to dismiss Karasev for academic reasons, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Karasev’s motion.
Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion is denying Karasev’s motion to
supplement the agency record.
CONCLUSION
Karasev fails to meet her burden of showing that Clark College’s decision to dismiss her
was invalid. Clark College did not err in not implementing the procedures in former WAC
132N-125 because Karasev’s dismissal was academic. And, Clark College did not violate
Karasev’s due process right when it dismissed her. As such, Karasev failed to show that Clark
College acted outside of its statutory authority, made an unconstitutional decision, or acted
arbitrarily and capriciously.
7 In Karasev’s motion before the trial court, she argued that the trial court should allow her to supplement the record with exhibit B attached to her attorney’s declaration because it evidences that Clark College used external exams in violation of WAC 246-840-527(7), which provides that “[n]ursing programs shall not use external nursing examinations as the sole basis for program progression or graduation.” CP at 249. However, this issue is not argued on appeal and is deemed waived. Hall v. Feigenbaum, 178 Wn. App. 811, 817, 319 P.3d 61 (2014).
16 No. 56108-5-II
In addition, the trial court did not err by denying Karasev’s motion to supplement the
agency record. We affirm the dismissal and the trial court’s decision on the motion to
supplement the agency record.8
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 in accordance with RCW
2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Worswick, J. We concur:
Glasgow, C.J.
Price, J.
8 Karasev requests attorney fees under RCW 4.48.350, which states that a court shall award the prevailing party fees and other expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees. Because Karasev does not prevail on appeal, we decline her request for attorney fees.