Opinion
No. 37186.
January 28, 1965.
[1] Workmen's Compensation — Conditions Entitling Persons to Benefits — Total Disability. In a hearing to determine whether there had been aggravation of an industrial injury, the trial court erred in instructing that there had been aggravation as a matter of law, where the evidence was in general agreement that a calcification condition had developed for which the claimant had not been compensated, but was conflicting as to whether such condition caused disability, since disability and not calcification is the issue in a claim of aggravation.
[2] Same — Proceedings — Evidence — Relevancy. Where a claimant alleged that aggravation during a period following an industrial accident resulted in total disability, the testimony of a physician to the effect that the claimant could do any moderate work, was relevant to the issue of the extent of the disability, where the physician had examined the claimant on or about the end of the alleged period of aggravation.
See Ann. 88 A.L.R. 385; Am. Jur., Workmen's Compensation (1st ed. § 294).
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Skamania County, No. 4120-C, Ross R. Rakow, J., entered April 15, 1963. Reversed and remanded.
Action to review an order of the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals. Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
The Attorney General and Andrew J. Young, Assistant, for appellant.
James E. McIver (of Walthew, Warner Keefe), for respondent.
Respondent was injured on November 15, 1949, in an industrial accident and was awarded certain permanent partial disability benefits on July 30, 1951. Claiming aggravation between July 30, 1951, and February 3, 1959, the respondent petitioned the Department of Labor and Industries to reopen his claim. The department and, subsequently, the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals found no increase in respondent's permanent disability between the terminal dates and denied the petition.
Upon appeal to the superior court, a verdict of permanent and total disability was returned by the jury and judgment entered accordingly. The department appeals.
The department assigns error upon the trial court's actions in (1) directing the jury to find that there had been an increase of permanent disability between the terminal dates; (2) striking the testimony of Dr. Alfred R. Kessler; and (3) submitting to the jury the issue of permanent total disability.
The essentials to sustain respondent's position are stated in Phillips v. Department of Labor Industries, 49 Wn.2d 195, 197, 298 P.2d 1117:
"(1) The causal relationship between the injury and the subsequent disability must be established by medical testimony. Cyr v. Department of Labor Industries, 47 Wn.2d 92, 95, 286 P.2d 1038 (1955), and case cited. (2) The claimant must prove by medical testimony, some of it based upon objective symptoms, that an aggravation of the injury resulted in increased disability. Moses v. Department of Labor Industries, supra [ 44 Wn.2d 511, 268 P.2d 665 (1954)], p. 517, and cases cited. (3) A claimant's medical testimony must show that the increased aggravation occurred between the terminal dates of the aggravation period. Moses v. Department of Labor Industries, supra, p. 517, and cases cited. (4) A claimant must prove by medical testimony, some of it based upon objective symptoms which existed on or prior to the closing date (in this case, after the first closing date and before the second closing date), that his disability on the date of the closing order was greater than the supervisor found it to be. Hyde v. Department of Labor Industries, 46 Wn.2d 31, 34, 278 P.2d 390 (1955), and case cited."
[1] Most of the medical testimony indicated that, as a result of the industrial injury, respondent had a post traumatic calcification of the capsular ligament in the left hip for which he had not been compensated. The department presented medical testimony that this condition caused no disability. The respondent presented contrary medical evidence. Since disability and not calcification was the issue (RCW 51.32.060 and 080; Hyde v. Department of Labor Industries, 46 Wn.2d 31, 278 P.2d 390), the trial court should not have instructed that there was aggravation as a matter of law.
[2] Next, Dr. Kessler, who examined respondent on or about the second terminal date, testified that respondent probably could, at that time "do lighter type of work" and "I am no expert on work, but all I can say is the findings this man displayed he could do any type of moderate type of work."
This testimony was relevant on the issue of the extent of respondent's disability on the last terminal date. The trial court erred in striking this testimony.
The last assignment of error relates to the action of the trial judge in submitting the issue of permanent total disability to the jury. One of the medical witnesses testified that the respondent was unable to engage in gainful employment because his education was insufficient and his work experience was entirely at hard labor. There was, of course, testimony to the contrary, but we think that this medical testimony presented an issue to the jury under Kuhnle v. Department of Labor Industries, 12 Wn.2d 191, 120 P.2d 1003, and Page v. Department of Labor Industries, 52 Wn.2d 706, 328 P.2d 663.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for new trial in accordance with the views expressed herein.
DONWORTH, FINLEY, WEAVER, and OTT, JJ., concur.