John L. Douglas, Jr., V. Dept Of Labor And Industries, 85945-5

John L. Douglas, Jr., with a congenital skeletal condition (no clavicle), worked over 40 years in physically demanding jobs.
In 2015, Douglas injured his right shoulder at work, received worker’s compensation, and returned to work; the claim closed without permanent disability.
In 2016, after leaving his job due to pain, Douglas reinjured his shoulder outside work while reaching for a water bottle and did not succeed in reopening his former industrial injury claim.
In 2019, Douglas filed a new claim for occupational disease, which the Department of Labor & Industries (Department) denied, and the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals affirmed that the diagnosed conditions did not arise naturally or proximately from his employment.
On appeal to the superior court, the jury found for the Department; Douglas appealed further, asserting errors in jury instructions and verdict form.

Issue	Douglas’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Denial of Proposed Jury Instruction on Compensable Consequences	Instruction would properly inform jury about aggravation and compensable consequences doctrine, supporting his theory of causation	Doctrine did not apply because issue was occupational disease, not sequelae of treatment; existing instructions covered necessary law	Trial court did not err; instructions allowed Douglas to argue his theory
Use of Department’s Special Verdict Form	Form was confusing and prejudicial; should have asked generally about occupational disease claim, and confusion as shown by jury’s questions	Form was proper because it mirrored Board’s findings as required by statute; separate questions clarified issues	Verdict form was appropriate and required by statute
Failure to Include Aggravation in Verdict Form	Form should have included language addressing aggravation theory	Douglas failed to raise objection at trial or propose specific alternative language	Issue waived and, alternatively, instructions adequately addressed aggravation
Alleged Judicial Bias	Judge’s statement showed bias for Department	No evidence or legal argument substantiating bias presented	Issue not preserved for review and inadequately argued

Dennis v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 109 Wn.2d 467 (Wash. 1987) (sets standards for "arises naturally and proximately" in occupational disease claims)
McDougle v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 64 Wn.2d 640 (Wash. 1964) (addresses reopening aggravation claims, not directly applicable)
Ross v. Erickson Constr. Co., 89 Wash. 634 (Wash. 1916) (early articulation of compensable consequences doctrine)
Anderson v. Allison, 12 Wn.2d 487 (Wash. 1942) (aggravation due to treatment does not break causal chain)
Scott Paper v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 73 Wn.2d 840 (Wash. 1968) (test for re-injury in reopening claims)