576 P.3d 567
Wash. Ct. App.2025Background
- Hillary Spanjer, a flight attendant for Alaska Airlines, suffered a workplace back injury during a hard landing in 2018 and sought workers’ compensation for medical treatment.
- After initial treatment failed, she received a sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion surgery, which she requested the Department of Labor and Industries to cover.
- The Department denied coverage, leading Spanjer to appeal; the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals reversed the denial and ordered Alaska Airlines (the self-insured employer) to pay for the surgery.
- Alaska Airlines appealed this ruling, challenging the Board’s finding that the surgery was "proper and necessary," and specifically sought a jury instruction that controversial or experimental treatments are presumed not proper and necessary.
- The trial court rejected Alaska Airlines’ proposed jury instruction as confusing and potentially misleading regarding the burden of proof, while allowing Alaska Airlines to present its theory to the jury.
- The jury affirmed the Board’s decision, ruling in favor of Spanjer, and the appeals court reviewed whether the trial court’s refusal to give the proposed instruction was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of Argument | Alaska raised/not waived issue at Board/appeal | Spanjer: Alaska waived argument by not properly raising it before Board | Court: Alaska preserved argument for appeal |
| Jury Instruction – "Comment on Evidence" | Instruction would amount to improper judicial comment | Language is from law, not a comment; necessary for theory | Court: Not improper comment, but not required |
| Jury Instruction – Burden/Shifting | Instruction confuses jury about burden (should be on Alaska) | Needed to clarify law on controversial/experimental treatments | Court: Instruction was confusing about burden; properly rejected |
| Ability to Argue Theory | Alaska could not present theory w/o instruction | Was able to argue theory, present expert testimony, cross-examine witnesses | Court: Alaska was not prevented from arguing theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 192 Wn.2d 488 (Wash. 2018) (clarifies standards for proper and necessary medical care under Industrial Insurance Act and judicial review)
- Gorre v. City of Tacoma, 184 Wn.2d 30 (Wash. 2015) (explains burden of proof and presumption in workers' compensation appeals)
- Hamilton v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 111 Wn.2d 569 (Wash. 1988) (defines when jury instructions constitute an improper comment on the evidence)
- Crossen v. Skagit County, 100 Wn.2d 355 (Wash. 1983) (trial court may refuse "erroneous in any respect" instructions)
- Spivey v. City of Bellevue, 187 Wn.2d 716 (Wash. 2017) (jury instructions must allow parties to argue theory of case and not mislead jury)