Boeing Co. v. Doss
183 Wash. 2d 54
| Wash. | 2015Background
- Patricia Doss, a Boeing employee, suffered chemical exposure at work that permanently aggravated preexisting asthma and, together with a knee injury, rendered her permanently totally disabled; the Department awarded a pension and authorized postpension medical treatment for asthma.
- The Department allocated pension costs under RCW 51.16.120(1), granting Boeing (a self-insured employer) second injury fund relief for the portion of the pension attributable to the workplace injury; the pension reserve fund covered the remainder.
- The Department directed Boeing to pay postpension medical treatment costs; Boeing paid the pension portion it owed but challenged liability for the postpension medical costs and sought their coverage by the second injury fund.
- The Board affirmed the Department; superior court reversed and held the second injury fund should cover postpension medical costs; the Court of Appeals affirmed the reversal; the Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court examined whether RCW 51.16.120(1) authorizes charging postpension medical costs to the second injury fund and whether denying such coverage unfairly burdens self-insured employers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Boeing) | Defendant's Argument (Department/Doss) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 51.16.120(1) permits charging postpension medical costs to the second injury fund | "Only" and "solely" mean self-insured pays only accident costs from workplace injury; second injury fund must cover postpension medical costs | RCW 51.16.120(1) is limited to accident/pension costs and does not relieve employer of medical obligations | No — statute covers only pension/accident costs, not medical costs |
| Whether regulatory assessment of claim costs creates entitlement to second injury relief for medical costs | Because medical costs factor into second injury fund assessments, requiring employer to pay medical costs is a double assessment | Assessment inputs do not determine scope of statutory relief; many assessed costs are not eligible charges against the fund | No — inclusion of medical costs in assessment base does not make them chargeable to the fund |
| Whether denying fund coverage for postpension medical costs unfairly burdens self-insured vs. state-fund employers | Self-insured employers bear greater burden because state-fund employers spread costs via experience rating and medical aid fund | State-fund employers’ experience ratings can be affected by postpension costs within valuation period; self-insurance entails different risk/benefit tradeoffs | No — statutory scheme and experience-rating rules do not create an unfair disparity |
| Proper construction of RCW 51.44.040 and related WACs regarding fund purpose | Broad purpose of fund supports medical-cost coverage | Statutory text and WACs limit RCW 51.16.120(1) relief to pension/accident costs only | The statutes and regulations confine RCW 51.16.120(1) relief to pension/accident costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Tomlinson v. Puget Sound Freight Lines, 166 Wn.2d 105 (discusses treating a worker ‘as he or she is’ with preexisting conditions under the IIA)
- WR Enters., Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 147 Wn.2d 213 (distinguishes pension/reserve funds from the medical aid fund)
- Johnson v. Tradewell Stores, Inc., 95 Wn.2d 739 (self-insured employers pay disability and medical benefits directly)
- Crown, Cork & Seal v. Smith, 171 Wn.2d 866 (explains second injury fund purpose to encourage hiring of disabled workers)
- Ellis v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 88 Wn.2d 844 (distinguishes permanent partial and permanent total disability concepts)
- Jussila v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 59 Wn.2d 772 (discusses limiting employer liability for combined preexisting and later injuries)
- Dennis v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 109 Wn.2d 467 (quotation on taking the worker as he is regarding preexisting frailties)