Roger A. Street, V Weyerhaeuser Company
75644-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 28, 2016Background
- Roger Street worked his entire career for Weyerhaeuser (and subsidiary), including heavy-duty mill jobs from 1991 onward that involved "manhandling" 1,000 lb paper rolls and repetitively loading 1.5–15 lb cores.
- In 2013 Street filed for workers' compensation for chronic low back pain/degenerative spine disease; the Department denied the claim, an IAALJ reversed, and the Board reversed the ALJ.
- Street appealed the Board to the superior court; a jury found the Board incorrect and concluded Street’s condition was an occupational disease arising "naturally and proximately" from distinctive work conditions.
- Weyerhaeuser appealed the superior court/jury verdict, arguing insufficient evidence and that expert medical testimony was required to show the distinctiveness of work conditions.
- The trial record included testimony from Street, his supervisor, his primary care/attending physician (who opined causation on a more-likely-than-not basis), and defense witnesses; the physician’s testimony received special consideration.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: substantial evidence supported the jury verdict and expert testimony was required for medical causation but not required to prove that work conditions were distinctive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Street’s back condition is an occupational disease arising "naturally and proximately" from employment | Street: attending physician tied degenerative back condition to heavy mechanical loading at work; jury may find work conditions distinctive based on lay and medical testimony | Weyerhaeuser: claimant must provide expert medical testimony not only for causation but also to show that the work conditions were distinctive to his employment | Held: Affirmed — expert medical testimony is required to prove medical causation (more probable than not) but not required to prove that work conditions were distinctive; substantial evidence supports jury verdict |
| Whether claimant must prove the "naturally" element via medical proof that conditions were distinctive to employment | Street: lay and medical testimony together suffice to show distinctive employment conditions; distinctiveness is a factual question for the finder of fact | Weyerhaeuser: "naturally" requires medical proof that claimant’s work conditions were distinctive and causative | Held: Rejected — Dennis and related cases require medical proof of causation, but do not impose an expert-testimony requirement to prove that the work conditions themselves were distinctive; distinctiveness may be proved by lay testimony and evaluated by the factfinder |
| Whether the Board’s findings were prima facie correct and whether superior court/jury could substitute findings | Street: Board was incorrect as a matter of fact and evidence supports superior court/jury reversal | Weyerhaeuser: Board’s determinations were correct and must be sustained absent prima facie showing otherwise | Held: The superior court/jury properly found Board incorrect by preponderance; appellate review finds substantial evidence supporting jury verdict |
| Whether Street is entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal | Street: as prevailing party below and on appeal, request fees under RCW 51.52.130 | Weyerhaeuser: argued reversal of fees award | Held: Court affirms trial award of fees/costs and grants Street fees on appeal under RCW 51.52.130 (subject to RAP 18.1(d)) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dennis v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 109 Wn.2d 467 (1987) (attending physician testimony required to establish medical causation; "naturally" element explained)
- Potter v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 172 Wn. App. 301 (2012) (insufficient evidence that workplace exposure created greater risk than other environments)
- Gast v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 70 Wn. App. 239 (1993) (rumors/innuendo at work are not distinctive employment conditions as a matter of law)
- Woldrich v. Vancouver Police Pension Bd., 84 Wn. App. 387 (1996) (claimant failed to show disability arose as natural consequence of distinctive employment conditions)
- Lyons Enters. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 185 Wn.2d 721 (2016) (standard for substantial evidence review explained)