Washington Prison Tuberculosis Verdict: King County Jury Awards $52.39M Against State DOC

A King County Superior Court jury on Monday, October 26, 2026 ordered the Washington State Department of Corrections to pay $52,390,000 to 23 people harmed by the 2021 tuberculosis outbreak at the Clallam Bay and Stafford Creek corrections centers, with individual awards ranging from $200,000 to $5 million. The Washington prison tuberculosis verdict came out of a damages-only trial, because the court had already ruled that the department owed the plaintiffs a duty to protect their health and breached it, which left the jury with only one question: what the harm was worth.

The plaintiffs are 21 men who contracted tuberculosis while incarcerated, plus the former spouse and infant child of a man who passed the infection to the baby after his release. Law360 reported the verdict on October 28, and The Seattle Times' account was syndicated to other Washington papers. The department said it is analyzing the verdict and weighing its options for appeal. Below: what the jury decided, how liability was established before trial, what public health investigators found, the Washington law that shaped the award, the appeal path, and what the result means for plaintiffs' firms, corrections agencies and the insurers and risk managers behind them.

How much did the jury award in the Washington prison tuberculosis case?

The total is $52,390,000, spread across 23 plaintiffs. Individual awards ran from a low of $200,000 to a high of $5 million. Law360 identified the three largest individual awards: Dennis Oya, the man public health officials and the lawsuit identify as the outbreak's source patient, received $5 million; a plaintiff identified as Tem received $3 million; and Vinson Carter-Vincent received $2.5 million.

Award line	Amount	Notes
Dennis Oya	$5,000,000	Source patient; alleged months of missed diagnosis at Clallam Bay
Tem	$3,000,000	Incarcerated plaintiff
Vinson Carter-Vincent	$2,500,000	Incarcerated plaintiff
Remaining 20 plaintiffs combined	$41,890,000	Range $200,000 to under $5 million each; average about $2.09 million
Total verdict	$52,390,000	23 plaintiffs; average about $2.28 million each

The average figures are arithmetic from the reported total and the three named awards, not jury findings. The individual amounts for the other 20 plaintiffs, including the former spouse and the infant, had not been published as of October 29, 2026. Because the trial was confined to damages, the money reflects the jury's valuation of the harm itself: the illness itself, the treatment it required and the mental trauma of contracting a contagious disease inside a locked facility. Law360 reported that the plaintiffs' claimed injuries included permanent scarring, other damage to their hearts and lungs, and psychological harm.

Who were the plaintiffs in the Washington DOC tuberculosis lawsuit?

There were 23 plaintiffs in three groups:

• 21 incarcerated men who contracted tuberculosis at the two prisons, including Oya.
• A former spouse of a man who left prison while infected.
• That man's infant child, whom he infected after his release.

The last two plaintiffs matter doctrinally. They were never in the department's custody, so their claims rest on the foreseeability of harm to people outside the prison walls. Washington's general negligence rule asks whether the injured person was within the general field of danger the defendant should have anticipated. A contagious respiratory disease spreading from a released inmate to his household is close to the textbook case of foreseeable downstream harm, and public health officials' later finding that hundreds of exposed people were released before anyone told them supports the point. Prison Legal News reported in June 2024 that more than 800 people left the prison system before officials identified their exposure.

The lawsuit was filed in November 2024 in King County Superior Court in Seattle, according to Law360, which described it as a medical malpractice case. That framing fits the allegations: the core claim is that the department's health care staff failed to diagnose and isolate a known TB patient and failed to screen the population around him. Health care negligence claims in Washington are generally governed by chapter 7.70 RCW, which sets the standard-of-care framework for injuries resulting from health care.

Why was the Washington Department of Corrections found liable for the TB outbreak?

The jury did not decide liability, because the court already had. Law360 reported that rulings in February and September 2026 found the department owed the plaintiffs a duty to protect their health and breached that duty. For trial, the department did not contest that the incarcerated plaintiffs contracted tuberculosis because of its negligence. The jury's task was therefore to put a dollar figure on each plaintiff's harm.

That sequence explains much of the verdict's size. A damages-only trial removes the defense's best arguments from the courtroom. Jurors never hear a contested causation case, never weigh competing experts on the standard of care, and never get a chance to compromise between liability and damages. They hear only about injuries, treatment and suffering, and they hear it knowing the court has already found the defendant at fault.

Two legal features made an early liability ruling possible:

1. The custodial duty. Washington recognizes that a jailer stands in a special relationship with the people it holds, because those people cannot protect themselves or seek outside care. The department controls who is screened, who is X-rayed, who is isolated and who shares a cell. Once the court found that duty existed and that the department's own records showed it was not met, the remaining questions were about harm.
2. A strong public health record. The plaintiffs did not have to build the breach case alone. A peer-reviewed CDC report, a state workplace safety citation and the department's own public statements all pointed in the same direction, discussed below.

What caused the tuberculosis outbreak in Washington state prisons?

The outbreak traces to one patient and one policy decision.

The source patient. According to the lawsuit, the outbreak began in December 2019, when Dennis Oya, then incarcerated at Clallam Bay Corrections Center on the Olympic Peninsula, told medical providers he was worried his tuberculosis had returned. Oya had a known history of TB infection; Prison Legal News reported that he first contracted it at 18. The suit alleges staff attributed his cough to acid reflux instead of testing or treating him, skipped a chest X-ray in 2021 and delayed another in 2022 despite his known latent infection. Oya was later transferred to Stafford Creek Corrections Center in Aberdeen, where the suit says he infected cellmates.

The policy decision. The CDC's report, published in March 2023 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Vol. 72, No. 12), concluded that the department's suspension of annual TB screening, while limited resources were redirected toward the COVID-19 response, resulted in delayed case detection that facilitated transmission. The report also noted that fear of isolation may have discouraged residents and staff from reporting symptoms, and that TB and COVID-19 can present with overlapping symptoms. Department spokesperson Chris Wright publicly attributed the outbreak to the pandemic-era suspension of annual testing, Prison Legal News reported.

The CDC's numbers show how far the disease moved:

• 25 TB cases were reported between July 2021 and June 2022 among people incarcerated, or formerly incarcerated, in two Washington prisons.
• Zero TB cases were reported in the Washington prison system from 2014 through 2020.
• 11 culture-confirmed cases had closely related Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates on genome sequencing, consistent with a single outbreak.
• 170 days was the median infectious period for the 12 patients considered likely contagious.
• 3,075 contacts across five state prisons had been identified as of November 15, 2022, and 244 contacts without a known TB history were diagnosed with latent TB infection.

Press accounts of the verdict use slightly different totals. The Seattle Times reported 244 people with latent tuberculosis and 27 with active disease across Clallam Bay and Stafford Creek; Law360 reported 245 latent infections and 25 active cases. The differences reflect different cut-off dates and counting rules, not a dispute about the outbreak's scale. All sources agree it was the largest tuberculosis outbreak in Washington in about 20 years.

The workplace citation. On September 9, 2022, the Washington Department of Labor and Industries fined the Department of Corrections about $84,000 for safety violations at Stafford Creek tied to the outbreak. Inspectors found, among other things, that corrections officers had not received initial or annual fit testing for their N95 respirators.

Timeline: from a cough at Clallam Bay to a $52.39 million verdict

Date	Event	Source
2014–2020	No TB cases reported in the Washington prison system	CDC MMWR
December 2019	Oya reports fear that his TB has returned; symptoms allegedly attributed to acid reflux	Lawsuit, via Seattle Times
2020–2021	Annual TB screening suspended as resources shift to COVID-19	CDC MMWR; DOC statements
July 2021–June 2022	25 TB cases reported in two prisons	CDC MMWR
2021	Chest X-ray allegedly skipped despite known latent infection	Lawsuit, via Seattle Times
2022	Second X-ray allegedly delayed	Lawsuit, via Seattle Times
September 9, 2022	L&I fines DOC about $84,000 over Stafford Creek safety violations	Prison Legal News
November 15, 2022	3,075 contacts across five prisons identified; 244 latent infections	CDC MMWR
March 2023	CDC publishes outbreak report	CDC MMWR
December 2023	Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department advisory urges testing of people held during the outbreak	Prison Legal News
November 2024	Lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court	Law360
February and September 2026	Court rules DOC owed and breached a duty of care	Law360
October 26, 2026	Jury returns $52,390,000 damages verdict	Law360
October 28, 2026	DOC says it is weighing options for appeal	Law360

Can incarcerated people sue the state of Washington for negligence?

Yes. Washington waived sovereign immunity for torts more than half a century ago. RCW 4.92.090 provides that the state, whether acting in its governmental or proprietary capacity, is liable for damages arising from its tortious conduct to the same extent as a private person or corporation. Nothing in the statute exempts claims by people in state custody, which is why the tuberculosis plaintiffs could sue the Department of Corrections in ordinary negligence in a state trial court.

There is a procedural gate. Under RCW 4.92.100, a tort claim against the state must first be presented to the Office of Risk Management on the standard tort claim form. Under RCW 4.92.110, no lawsuit may be started until 60 calendar days after the claim is presented. The statute of limitations is tolled during that period, and a suit filed within five court days after it ends is treated as timely. Missing the presentment step is a common and avoidable ground for dismissal in claims against Washington agencies.

The choice of a state-law negligence claim over a federal civil rights claim was also strategic. Three features of federal law make a § 1983 suit a weaker vehicle for this kind of case:

• No suit against the state itself. In Will v. Michigan Department of State Police (1989), the US Supreme Court held that a state is not a "person" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, so damages claims there run only against individual officials.
• A higher liability standard. An Eighth Amendment medical claim requires deliberate indifference, meaning subjective awareness of a serious risk and a choice to disregard it. Negligence, even gross negligence, is not enough. A state negligence claim asks only whether the defendant failed to use reasonable care.
• The Prison Litigation Reform Act. The PLRA's exhaustion requirement, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), applies to prison-conditions suits brought under § 1983 or other federal law, and § 1997e(e) limits recovery for mental or emotional injury in federal civil actions without a prior physical injury. A state-law tort suit in state court sidesteps both.

For this group of plaintiffs, many of whom had been released, the state forum offered the full measure of compensatory damages against a solvent defendant on a lower liability standard.

Why was there no punitive damages award in the tuberculosis verdict?

Washington does not allow punitive damages unless a statute expressly authorizes them. The Washington Supreme Court restated that long-standing rule in Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance Co., 129 Wn.2d 572 (1996), describing punitive damages as contrary to the state's public policy absent legislative authorization. No statute authorizes punitive damages for medical negligence or ordinary negligence by a state agency, so the entire $52.39 million is compensatory.

That cuts both ways. For the plaintiffs, the jury could not add a punishment layer, however it viewed the department's conduct. For the state, the verdict is harder to attack on appeal: there is no ratio between punitive and compensatory damages to challenge under due process limits, and no separate finding of malice or recklessness to overturn.

Washington is also one of the few states with no enforceable cap on noneconomic damages. In Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wn.2d 636 (1989), the Washington Supreme Court struck down the legislature's cap in RCW 4.56.250, holding that it interfered with the jury's constitutional role in determining damages. So unlike California, where the MICRA cap limits noneconomic damages in medical negligence cases, the King County jury's pain-and-suffering valuations stand as returned unless the trial judge or an appellate court finds them excessive.

Will the Washington Department of Corrections appeal the $52 million verdict?

The department said it is analyzing the verdict and weighing options for appeal, according to Law360. No appeal had been filed as of October 29, 2026. The usual sequence in a Washington superior court case is:

1. Entry of judgment on the verdict.
2. Post-trial motions. Under Civil Rule 59, a motion for a new trial or to amend the judgment must be filed within 10 days after entry of judgment. RCW 4.76.030 lets the trial court reduce a verdict it finds so excessive that it must have been the result of passion or prejudice, with the plaintiff given the choice of accepting the reduction or a new trial.
3. Notice of appeal. Under Rule of Appellate Procedure 5.2, a notice of appeal is generally due 30 days after entry of the decision being appealed. King County appeals go to Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals in Seattle.

Because liability was decided on pretrial rulings, any appeal is likely to target those rulings as well as the size of individual awards. A department challenging the February and September duty-and-breach rulings would be asking the appellate court to send the case back for a full trial, which carries the risk of a liability verdict reached with the jury hearing the defense's evidence and a damages number that could be higher or lower. Washington appellate courts give strong deference to jury damages awards, and the absence of any cap or punitive component leaves the state relying on the "shocks the conscience" and passion-or-prejudice standards.

How does the verdict compare with other prison medical negligence cases?

Few tuberculosis cases arising from incarceration have reached a jury, and the reported settlements are far smaller. Prison Legal News has documented a $1.4 million settlement in Satterwhite, a federal case against the Bureau of Prisons over untreated latent TB at the Federal Detention Center at SeaTac, which survived a qualified immunity motion in 2013 before settling. Earlier King County jail TB claims settled for $10,000 and $25,000. A separate proposed class action over the 2021 state prison outbreak has also been reported by KING 5; its current status was not available from public reporting.

The October 26 verdict differs from those cases in three ways:

• Forum and theory. It is a state-court negligence case against the agency, not a federal civil rights case against individual officers.
• Liability posture. The court resolved duty and breach before trial, leaving only damages for the jury.
• Scale and documentation. A CDC report, a state citation and the department's own account of the screening suspension created an unusually complete public record of the breach.

The closest analogues in recent coverage are other institutional-care cases where a regulatory record carried the liability case and the jury focused on harm, such as the Sapphire Nursing at Wappingers understaffing verdict in New York.

What it means for plaintiffs' firms, corrections agencies and insurers

For plaintiffs' firms. The case shows a repeatable model for institutional outbreak claims: anchor the breach case in a public health investigation, plead in state negligence rather than § 1983 where the state has waived immunity, and press for a pretrial ruling on duty and breach so the jury hears only damages. The household plaintiffs, a former spouse and an infant, show that claims can extend past the prison walls when a released person carries the disease home. Firms representing the hundreds of people released before their exposure was identified will be weighing the statute of limitations and the discovery rule, and every claim against the state still has to clear the RCW 4.92.100 presentment step and the 60-day wait.

For corrections agencies. The verdict prices a decision many systems made in 2020 and 2021: pausing routine infectious disease screening to fight COVID-19. The CDC's finding that the pause delayed detection and facilitated spread became the core of the breach case. Agencies that suspended TB, hepatitis or other screening programs during the pandemic, and that have not fully documented their restart, carry a similar exposure. Medical records showing a known latent infection followed by missed imaging are especially hard to defend.

For insurers, risk pools and budget writers. Washington is self-insured for tort liability, so judgments against agencies are paid through the state's risk management system and ultimately through appropriations. In states without noneconomic damages caps, an outbreak claim multiplies quickly: 23 plaintiffs averaging about $2.28 million each. Counties and private prison and jail health contractors, which are insured, will see the result reflected in loss runs and in how carriers underwrite infectious disease controls.

For defense counsel. The lesson is about sequencing. Conceding causation for trial may have been the realistic call on this record, but it left the jury with nothing to weigh except harm. Where the liability record is weak, early resolution before a damages-only trial is set may be the only meaningful lever.

Frequently asked questions

How much was the Washington prison tuberculosis verdict?

The King County jury awarded $52,390,000 in total to 23 plaintiffs on October 26, 2026, with individual awards from $200,000 to $5 million. Source patient Dennis Oya received the largest award, $5 million.

Which prisons were involved in the TB outbreak?

Clallam Bay Corrections Center in Clallam County and Stafford Creek Corrections Center in Aberdeen. Oya first reported symptoms at Clallam Bay and was later moved to Stafford Creek, where the lawsuit says he infected cellmates. CDC contact tracing ultimately reached five state prisons.

Why did the jury only decide damages?

Court rulings in February and September 2026 had already found that the Department of Corrections owed the plaintiffs a duty to protect their health and breached it, and the department did not contest at trial that the incarcerated plaintiffs contracted TB because of its negligence.

Did the jury award punitive damages?

No. Washington bars punitive damages unless a statute expressly authorizes them, under Dailey v. North Coast Life Insurance Co. (1996), so the entire award is compensatory.

Can people exposed to TB in Washington prisons still file claims?

Possibly, depending on when they were diagnosed or learned of the exposure. Any tort claim against the state must first be presented to the Office of Risk Management under RCW 4.92.100, followed by a 60-day waiting period under RCW 4.92.110 before suit. Limitations questions depend on individual facts, including the discovery rule.

Is the Department of Corrections appealing?

The department said it is analyzing the verdict and weighing options for appeal. Post-trial motions in Washington are due within 10 days of judgment, and a notice of appeal generally within 30 days, to Division One of the Court of Appeals.