Home Table of Contents

WPI 155.13.01 Testimony of Attending Physician

6A WAPRAC WPI 155.13.01Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 155.13.01 (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 155.13.01 Testimony of Attending Physician

You should give special consideration to testimony given by an attending physician. Such special consideration does not require you to give greater weight or credibility to, or to believe or disbelieve, such testimony. It does require that you give any such testimony careful thought in your deliberations.

NOTE ON USE

This instruction must be used when an attending physician testifies. See Comment. Use in conjunction with WPI 155.01 (Conclusion of Trial—Introductory Instruction) and WPI 2.10 (Expert Testimony).

COMMENT

In Hamilton v. Department of Labor & Industries, 111 Wn.2d 569, 761 P.2d 618 (1988), the Washington Supreme Court held that the following instruction given by the trial court did not constitute an unconstitutional comment on the evidence: “In cases under the Industrial Insurance Act of the State of Washington, special consideration should be given to the opinion of the plaintiff's attending physician.” The court found that this instruction did not give the personal opinion of the trial judge and that it embodied a long-standing rule of law in workers' compensation cases that special consideration should be given to the opinion of a claimant's attending physician.

In Spalding v. Department of Labor & Industries, 29 Wn.2d. 115, 186 P.2d 76 (1947), the Supreme Court explained the reasoning behind the rule:

While we do not desire to be understood as laying down any hard and fast rule, it is our opinion that an attending physician, assuming of course that he shows himself to be qualified, who has attended a patient for a considerable period of time for the purpose of treatment, and who has treated the patient, is better qualified to give an opinion as to the patient's disability than a doctor who has seen and examined the patient once.

Spalding, 29 Wn.2d at 128–29.

In Clark County v. McManus, 185 Wn.2d 466, 372 P.3d 764 (2016), the court squarely held that use of this instruction is mandatory in workers' compensation cases when an attending physician testifies. It rejected Court of Appeals decisions suggesting otherwise. After discussing the case of Boeing Co. v. Harker-Lott, 93 Wn.App. 181, 968 P.2d 14 (1998) (which it described as “somewhat unique”) the Supreme Court noted that some trial court discretion remained “in those instances where the instruction cannot be given, such as where there are multiple attending physicians offering conflicting testimony.” McManus, 185 Wn.2d at 476 n.4.

For various types of “attending physician,” see WAC 296-20-01002 (“Doctor or attending doctor”).

[Current as of October 2021.]

End of Document