Chunyk & Conley/quad C, V Patti C. Boettger
49087-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Patti Boettger injured her back at work in 1998; she underwent multiple surgeries and stopped working thereafter. She claimed time-loss benefits for various periods in 2006–2010.
- A 2009 jury previously found Boettger was not temporarily totally disabled for August 19, 2006–October 23, 2006; that verdict was not appealed and was not offered into evidence before the Board.
- The Department of Labor & Industries issued an order in 2012 finding Boettger temporarily totally disabled from October 24, 2006–September 27, 2010; the Board affirmed that order after administrative hearings.
- Quad C (employer) appealed the Board’s decision to superior court. At trial Quad C sought to admit the 2009 verdict form and proposed jury instructions characterizing the prior verdict as law of the case; the trial court excluded the verdict form and refused the proposed instructions.
- The jury returned a verdict that the Board was correct in finding Boettger temporarily totally disabled for October 24, 2006–September 27, 2010. Quad C moved to vacate and for a new trial; the trial court denied relief. Quad C appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Boettger) | Defendant's Argument (Quad C) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of 2009 verdict form | Prior verdict irrelevant to this appeal; review limited to Board record | 2009 verdict was law of the case and should be admitted as part of jurisdictional history | Exclusion affirmed: prior verdict involved a different action/time period and was not part of the Board record; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Jury instructions referencing prior verdict | Not required because Board did not find the prior verdict and it is outside this litigation | Prior jury finding should be instructed as law of the case and require showing of changed condition | Refused: instructions misstated law (law of the case inapplicable to different litigation/time period); refusal not an abuse of discretion |
| Amendment of Board findings to include prior verdict | Jury should be told of all historical facts, including prior verdict, as material to Board findings | Board never made such a finding; trial court must instruct only on the Board’s exact findings | Denied: Board did not find prior non-disability for the later period, so no amendment required |
| Motion to vacate / sufficiency of evidence | No evidence showed inability to work part-time; verdict unsupported | Evidence (physical and psychiatric testimony) established inability to work on a reasonably continuous basis | Denied: substantial evidence supported temporary total disability for Oct 24, 2006–Sept 27, 2010; no abuse of discretion in denying new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Greene v. Rothschild, 68 Wn.2d 1 (1966) (explaining law-of-the-case doctrine applies to subsequent stages of same litigation)
- Roberson v. Perez, 156 Wn.2d 33 (2005) (describing law-of-the-case principle and its scope)
- Ruse v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 138 Wn.2d 1 (1999) (standard that superior court may substitute findings only if Board’s findings are incorrect by a fair preponderance)
- Hunter v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 71 Wn. App. 501 (1993) (definition of temporary total disability as inability to perform generally available work on a reasonably continuous basis)
- Keller v. City of Spokane, 146 Wn.2d 237 (2002) (standards for sufficiency and clarity of jury instructions)
- Mayer v. Sto Indus., 156 Wn.2d 677 (2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard when a trial court relies on unsupported facts or incorrect legal standards)