Alla Koval v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, Inc., Et Ano.
74664-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 6, 2017Background
- Alla Koval, a phlebotomist, had preexisting knee problems (traumatic arthritis, weight-related risk factors) and suffered workplace knee injuries in 2010 and 2011; she filed claims with L&I that were allowed but later closed without permanent partial disability awards.
- L&I closed the 2010 claim in May 2010; an application to reopen was denied in July 2013. The 2011 claim was closed in April 2012 with no permanent partial disability award and that closure was affirmed in December 2012.
- Koval returned to work without limitations between March and December 2012. She later appealed the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals decisions to superior court; the case was tried to a jury.
- At the Board and at trial, vocational counselor Lori Allen testified about RCW 51.32.095 and whether a preclosure vocational assessment had been performed; portions of her testimony were excluded by the trial court, though the court admitted that the claim files lacked a vocational assessment and admitted Allen’s understanding of the statute.
- The trial court gave WPI 30.18.01 (including the optional bracketed sentence) on proximate causation and preexisting conditions. The jury returned a verdict for Auburn Regional Medical Center, denying Koval a permanent partial disability award and denial to reopen; the superior court affirmed and Koval appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Koval) | Defendant's Argument (Auburn Medical / L&I) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Instruction 10 (WPI 30.18.01 with bracketed sentence) misstated proximate-cause law by requiring that any role of a preexisting condition bar recovery | Instruction improperly told jury that if any part of claimed injury was attributable to natural progression of preexisting condition, Koval could not recover | Instruction correctly tracks Washington law: award damages proximately caused by the injury but exclude damages that would have resulted from natural progression of a preexisting condition | Court held the instruction was correct and supported by substantial evidence; no error |
| Whether Instruction 10 forced speculation about future effects of natural progression of the preexisting condition | Instruction compelled juror speculation about whether natural progression would have required future treatment | There was substantial medical testimony; jury could rely on evidence rather than speculate | Court held instruction did not require speculation and was supported by medical testimony |
| Whether the optional bracketed sentence of WPI 30.18.01 is limited to personal-injury cases where jury must reduce damages | Bracketed language improperly used in this workers’ comp context | Bracketed sentence may be given where evidence supports inference that some injury resulted from natural progression | Court held Torno’s analysis (evidence required to give instruction) supports giving the bracketed language here because record evidence supported it |
| Whether exclusion of testimony that no vocational assessment was performed prejudiced Koval | Exclusion of Allen’s testimony that Koval needed vocational services and that none was performed deprived Koval of proof that L&I prematurely closed her claim | Trial court admitted Allen’s statutory understanding and that claim files lacked a preclosure vocational assessment; that was sufficient for Koval to present her theory to the jury | Court held any exclusion was not prejudicial because admitted evidence allowed Koval to argue premature closure; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Wendt v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 571 P.2d 229 (Wash. Ct. App.) (multiple proximate-cause rule: take worker as he is with preexisting frailties)
- Torno v. Hayek, 135 P.3d 536 (Wash. Ct. App.) (bracketed WPI language may be used when evidence shows natural progression contributed to injury)
- Shea v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 529 P.2d 1131 (Wash. Ct. App.) (work-related injury that is a significant contributing cause may support benefits despite other causes)
- Keller v. City of Spokane, 44 P.3d 845 (Wash.) (standards for sufficiency and reading jury instructions as a whole)
- Phillips v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 298 P.2d 1117 (Wash.) (medical testimony required to establish causal relationship between injury and disability)