Patricia K. Smith-wade, App V. Gly Construction, Inc., Et Ano., Resps, 85563-8

Patricia Smith-Wade, while working as a flagger for GLY Construction, was injured when struck by an electric bicycle, leading to a workers' compensation claim with the Department of Labor and Industries (DLI).
DLI closed her claim without awarding permanent partial disability benefits; Smith-Wade challenged this, leading to appeals before the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (BIIA) and then the superior court.
During the BIIA hearings, Smith-Wade attempted to introduce vocational expert Nicholas Choppa well after the disclosure deadline, leading to objections and subsequent exclusion issues at the superior court.
At trial, Smith-Wade’s expert (Dr. Johnson) opined she could not return to her former job, while opposing experts opined she could; Choppa’s testimony was ultimately excluded.
Smith-Wade’s challenge focused on exclusion of Choppa’s testimony, jury instruction refusals, and the giving of a defendant-proposed instruction, all of which were ultimately reviewed by the appeals court.
The appeals court affirmed the jury’s verdict and the lower court’s decisions, finding no reversible error despite recognizing some procedural mistakes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of Choppa’s Testimony	Excluding Choppa was error because the trial court did not follow required Burnet analysis	Testimony was properly excluded due to untimely disclosure and prejudice	Court abused discretion but error was harmless—testimony was cumulative
Refusal to Give Plaintiff’s Jury Instruction	The court erred by refusing a pattern instruction on objective/subjective medical findings	Other instructions sufficed; plaintiff could argue theory in closing	Abuse of discretion, but not prejudicial error
Giving DLI’s Proposed Jury Instruction	The DLI instruction (on causation by medical probability) was erroneous and confused the jury	Instruction proper as it stated applicable law	Instruction irrelevant to jury’s actual task; error, but not prejudicial
Attorney Fees	Smith-Wade entitled to fees if she prevails	Not entitled since she did not prevail	Plaintiff not entitled to attorney fees

Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484 (Wash. 1997) (sets standard for imposing severe discovery sanctions such as witness exclusion)
Jones v. City of Seattle, 179 Wn.2d 322 (Wash. 2013) (witness exclusion is a harsh remedy and courts must follow specific steps before imposing it)
Bodin v. City of Stanwood, 130 Wn.2d 726 (Wash. 1996) (jury instructions must enable argument and not mislead the jury)
Price v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 101 Wn.2d 520 (Wash. 1984) (proper jury instructions based on the Washington Pattern Instructions)
Keller v. City of Spokane, 146 Wn.2d 237 (Wash. 2002) (jury instructions must address only issues actually before the jury)