Home Table of Contents

WPI155.09Extent 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
July 2019 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
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
See Wilber v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., Lewis v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 93 Wn.2d 1, 603 P.2d 1262 (1979); 61 Wn.2d 439, 378 P.2d 684 (1963); and Parks v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 46 Wn.2d 895, 286 P.2d 104 (1955).
In Price v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 101 Wn.2d 520, 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.
[Current as of November 2016.]
End of Document© 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.