ATTORNEY GENERAL DEFENDS MURPHY INVESTIGATION

A jury has spoken, but a representative of the state Attorney General's
Office maintains the Board of Pharmacy did nothing wrong six years ago when
it collected and disclosed health information about then-Sheriff Patrick
Murphy.

"We just believe the Pharmacy Board acted properly based on the information
it had," said Gary Larson, spokesman for the attorney general. "It
exercised reasonable care in the performance of its duties."

A jury disagreed Tuesday, awarding $2.6 million to the former sheriff after
it ruled the board was negligent in disclosing Murphy's prescription drug
information to county officials in June 1995.

Murphy's wife and three children were awarded $200,000 in damages.

State lawyers who defended the Murphy lawsuit against the state have not
been available for comment since the verdict was reached Tuesday afternoon.

But Larson said Murphy's own actions were the main reason for problems the
appointed sheriff had afterward. He was charged with a crime, lost an
election and battled to have the charges dropped the following year.

The jury said Murphy was 20 percent to blame for his own problems, and the
state 80 percent.

Murphy, who suffers from chronic jaw pain, was taking a substantial amount
of painkillers when the Pharmacy Board investigated him a few weeks after
he was appointed sheriff. In trial, his physicians testified the high doses
were necessary for him to keep functioning.

Still, Murphy was criticized during the trial for not disclosing his use of
medication, and he was accused of being deceptive. The civil court jury
said the former sheriff didn't commit fraud, but the attorney general
maintains that he did, Larson said.

"We believe the evidence showed Mr. Murphy was engaged in felonious
activities," he said. "Therefore, it was our position that he was not
entitled to damages."

Sue Shoblom, a director in the Department of Health that oversees the
Pharmacy Board, said internal procedures have changed since 1995, but she
can't say if the Murphy case was responsible for them.

"We still believe everything we did was absolutely correct, within our
legal jurisdiction," she said. "We were in a very unique situation, caught
with a very difficult decision between balancing privacy, which is
important to us, and protecting the community."

What's next?

Both sides could have moves.

A judge has reserved a ruling on a state argument that the disclosure of
information by the Pharmacy Board was not a direct cause of any injuries
Murphy suffered. The decision to prosecute him was made by an independent,
special prosecutor, Larson said.

The argument is that there can be no damage recovery if state actions
didn't directly affect Murphy.

If the judge rules the state is correct, he could wind up overturning the
Murphy jury verdict.

If the verdict stands, Larson said it's possible the state will appeal.

Murphy and his Seattle lawyer, Mark Northcraft, also have another move up
their sleeves.

A separate lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court in Seattle. The
federal suit alleges that Murphy's civil rights were violated, and that
county officials conspired to make sure Murphy wasn't elected sheriff. Both
the state and county remain defendants in that case.

On Wednesday, Northcraft wasn't available to say whether he will pursue the
federal suit.