WPI 155.09 Extent of Disability or Aggravation—Basis of Medical Opinion
6A WAPRAC WPI 155.09Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 155.09 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Part XI. Workers' Compensation
Chapter 155. Workers' Compensation
WPI 155.09 Extent of Disability or Aggravation—Basis of Medical Opinion
[The extent of(worker's name)'s industrially related physical disability] [Aggravation of(worker's name)'s industrially related condition and the extent of(worker's name)'s increased disability on the date of claimed aggravation] must be supported by medical testimony based at least in part upon one or more objective findings.
Statements of complaints by the worker made to a physician are called subjective complaints. Findings of disability that can be seen, felt, or measured by an examining physician are called objective findings.
In determining [whether aggravation has occurred and] the extent of [any resulting increased] disability, a physician cannot rely solely upon complaints, but must have some objective basis for his or her opinion. On the other hand, a physician need not rely solely upon objective findings. If there are objective findings, then the physician may also consider subjective complaints.
NOTE ON USE
This instruction should be given in cases of physical disability but should not be given in cases involving mental or emotional disability, loss of hearing or sight, or postconcussion syndrome.
COMMENT
Felipe v. Department of Labor & Industries, 195 Wn.App. 908, 918, 381 P.3d 205 (2016), cited this instruction with approval.
See Wilber v. Dep't of Lab. & Indus., 61 Wn.2d 439, 378 P.2d 684 (1963); Lewis v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co., 93 Wn.2d 1, 603 P.2d 1262 (1979); Parks v. Dep't of Lab. & Indus., 46 Wn.2d 895, 286 P.2d 104 (1955).
In Price v. Department of Labor & Industries, 101 Wn.2d 520, 529, 682 P.2d 307 (1984), the court held that it is improper to instruct the jury on the objective-subjective distinction in a case involving psychiatric disability. The legal standard under Price is that if a medical condition cannot be supported by objective findings (e.g., “mental or emotional disability, loss of hearing or sight, or postconcussion syndrome”), then it is improper to give the instruction. However, if a medical condition can be supported by objective evidence but has not been so supported by a medical witness (e.g., the only evidence recited by a doctor in support of allowance are the subjective symptoms of the patient), then the instruction is proper.
[Current as of October 2021.]
Westlaw. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |