James J. Miller, V. Public Utility Dist. 1, Et Ano, 81676-4

In 2015 James Miller, a line foreman for Snohomish County PUD No. 1, injured his right shoulder at work and developed permanent lifting/carrying/pushing/pulling/reaching restrictions that precluded his former heavy-duty job.
Miller had prior, closed industrial-claims (including prior back claims) but no formal work restrictions from those prior claims at the time of the shoulder injury.
In September 2016 the PUD offered a modified position, “Entry Helper – Modified,” requiring several hours of standing directing traffic; the job was approved by Miller’s treating physician and an IME physician.
Miller rejected the offer, asserting new lower-back pain prevented prolonged standing; as a result his workers’ compensation claim and vocational services were closed.
The director of the Department of Labor & Industries, the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, and the Snohomish County Superior Court all found the return-to-work offer valid, concluding Miller’s back issues were not shown to have existed or been aggravated at the time of the shoulder injury.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the director did not abuse his discretion and substantial evidence supports the validity of the job offer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the director abused his discretion by excluding Miller’s prior/back limitations when finding a return-to-work offer valid	Miller: director wrongly ignored preexisting frailties and any limitations that made him unable to stand for long periods	Director/PUD: director may exclude limitations not related to this claim and not present at time of injury; the offered job matched documented restrictions	Court: director considered Miller’s prior condition evidence, properly excluded post‑injury/unrelated back problems, and substantial evidence supports the valid offer; affirmed

Dennis v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 109 Wn.2d 467 (1987) (director must consider worker’s preexisting frailties when assessing employability)
Nash v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 1 Wn. App. 705 (1969) (conditions arising after the industrial injury not considered unless caused or aggravated by it)
Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 677 (2006) (standard for reversing discretionary administrative decisions)
Ruse v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 138 Wn.2d 1 (1999) (burden of proof and appellate scope in industrial insurance appeals)
Anderson v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 116 Wn. App. 149 (2003) (director has broad discretion to determine return-to-work offer validity)
Hendrickson v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 2 Wn. App. 2d 343 (2018) (review of superior court findings for substantial evidence)