Home Table of Contents

WPI155.11.01Aggravation—Prior Award—Burden of Proof

6A WAPRAC WPI 155.11.01Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 155.11.01 (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 155.11.01 Aggravation—Prior Award—Burden of Proof
To establish that there is [increased permanent disability] [a need for treatment] because of aggravation, the worker has the burden of proving each of the following propositions [by medical testimony based at least in part upon a comparison of objective findings]:
(1) That the aggravation resulted in [increased permanent disability] [a need for treatment];
(2) That the [increased permanent disability] [need for treatment] was proximately caused by the [industrial injury] [occupational disease]; [and]
(3) That the aggravation occurred between(date)and(date)[.] [; and]
[(4) That the disability on(date)was greater than that for which an award was made on(date).]
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction with WPI 155.11 (Aggravation—Prior Award), WPI 155.09 (Extent of Disability or Aggravation—Basis of Medical Opinion), WPI 155.13 (Weighing Medical and Lay Testimony), and the appropriate proximate cause definition from this chapter.
Use bracketed material as appropriate. Element (4) of this instruction may require modification or omission in cases of temporary aggravation.
COMMENT
See the Comment to WPI 155.11 (Aggravation—Prior Award).
As to whether medical testimony needs to be based on a comparison of objective findings, the WPI Committee is of the view that with the insertion of the phrase “at least in part,” the instruction as currently worded calls attention to the need for a comparison while accurately reflecting the position of the courts that “an expert medical witness may not base his opinion upon subjective symptoms alone.” Kresoya v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 40 Wn.2d 40, 45, 240 P.2d 257, 260 (1952). See also Lewis v. ITT Continental Baking, 93 Wn.2d 1, 3, 603 P.2d 1262 (1979).
[Current as of November 2016.]
End of Document© 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.