Home Table of Contents

WPI 155.03 Burden of Proof

6A WAPRAC WPI 155.03Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 155.03 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part XI. Workers' Compensation
Chapter 155. Workers' Compensation
WPI 155.03 Burden of Proof
The findings and decision of the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals are presumed correct. This presumption is rebuttable, and it is for you to determine whether it is rebutted by the evidence. The burden of proof is on(name of appellant)to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision is incorrect.
When it is said that a party has the burden of proof on any proposition, or that any proposition must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, or the expression “if you find” is used, it means that you must be persuaded, considering all the evidence in the case [bearing on the question], that the proposition on which that party has the burden of proof is more probably true than not true.
NOTE ON USE
This instruction should be given in every case. The last paragraph is the same as WPI 21.01 (Meaning of Burden of Proof—Preponderance of the Evidence).
This instruction may need modification in cases when a party bears a burden of proof or rebuttable presumption at the Board level. For example, RCW 51.32.185 imposes at the Board level a rebuttal presumption against employers that melanoma in firefighters is an “occupational disease” for workers' compensation purposes. Spivey v. City of Bellevue, 187 Wn.2d 716, 727, 730, 389 P.3d 504 (2017); see also Leitner v. City of Tacoma, 15 Wn.App.2d 1, 12, 476 P.3d 618, review denied, 196 Wn.2d 1045, 481 P.3d 553 (2021) (statute provides a rebuttable presumption that heart conditions experienced by firefighters under certain conditions are an occupational disease). The Washington Supreme Court held that the trial court properly modified this instruction by adding the following paragraph informing the jury of the proper burden at the Board level:
At the hearing before the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, the burden of proof is on the employer to rebut the presumption that 1) claimant's malignant melanoma arose naturally out of his conditions of employment as a firefighter and, 2) his employment is a proximate cause of his malignant melanoma.
Spivey, 187 Wn.2d at 730.
COMMENT
RCW 51.52.115 provides that the Board's findings and decision shall be “prima facie” correct. This has been interpreted to mean that there is a presumption on appeal that the findings and decision are correct until the trier of fact determines they are incorrect by a preponderance of the evidence. Allison v. Dep't of Lab. & Indus., 66 Wn.2d 263, 401 P.2d 982 (1965); see also McClelland v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 65 Wn.App. 386, 828 P.2d 1138 (1992); Belnap v. Boeing Co., 64 Wn.App. 212, 823 P.2d 528 (1992). The court in Harrison Memorial Hospital v. Gagnon, 110 Wn.App. 475, 40 P.3d 1221 (2002), affirmed the principle that when the claimant has prevailed before the Board, the claimant does not carry an additional burden of proof before the superior court, and that the burden of proof is solely on the appealing party.
In an employer's appeal, the court held that the burden of proving that a decision of the Board is erroneous is sustained by demonstrating that there is not enough evidence to support it. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Dep't of Lab. & Indus., 43 Wn.2d 584, 262 P.2d 536 (1953).
At the trial court level, RCW 51.52.115 does not reverse or change any rebuttable presumption imposed at the Board level. Spivey v. City of Bellevue, 187 Wn.2d 716, 736, 389 P.3d 504 (2017). Rather, a party appealing a Board decision must show that the Board did not meet the applicable burden or adhere to the applicable presumption. Spivey, 187 Wn.2d at 736. For example, when employers bear a rebuttal presumption before the Board that melanoma is an “occupational disease” of firefighters, an employee appealing a Board decision meets RCW 51.52.115's standard by demonstrating that the employer's evidence at the Board level did not rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. Spivey, 187 Wn.2d at 736.
[Current as of October 2021.]
End of Document