Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Shirley
| Decision Date | 13 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 66994–0–I.,66994–0–I. |
| Citation | 171 Wash.App. 870,288 P.3d 390 |
| Parties | DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, Appellant, v. Brian I. SHIRLEY, Deceased, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Scott T. Middleton, Attorney General's Office, Seattle, WA, Steve Vinyard, Attorney at Law, Olympia, WA, for Appellant.
Benjamin Riverbed Sligar, Davies Pearson, Tacoma, WA, for Respondent.
¶ 1 A surviving spouse of an industrial worker whose death is work-related is entitled to compensation under the Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW. Brian Shirley suffered an industrial injury in 2004. He died accidentally in 2007 after ingesting multiple prescription medications—prescribed to treat pain resulting from the industrial injury—simultaneously with alcohol. The Department of Labor and Industries appeals a superior court order denying its motion for summary judgment and affirming an award of survivor benefits to Mr. Shirley's widow. The Department argues that Mr. Shirley's simultaneous ingestion of alcohol and prescription medications constituted an intervening activity that broke the chain of causation between his industrial injury and his death, thereby precluding the payment of survivor benefits. Because the medications were prescribed to treat the lasting effects of Mr. Shirley's industrial injury and thus were a proximate cause of death under Washington's multiple proximate cause analysis, we affirm the superior court's order affirming the award of survivor benefits to Ms. Shirley.
¶ 2 In June 2004, Brian Shirley sustained an industrial injury to his low back. He filed an application for industrial insurance benefits with the Department of Labor and Industries. The Department allowed his claim and paid benefits.
¶ 3 The Department closed Mr. Shirley's claim in March 2005 with no award for permanent partial disability. Mr. Shirley filed a protest and request for reconsideration, but the Department affirmed its closing order in May 2005. At the time his claim closed, Mr. Shirley was taking only ibuprofen and no physician was prescribing him opioid medications. Mr. Shirley never filed an application to reopen his claim.
¶ 4 On the morning of May 3, 2007, Mr. Shirley's wife, Desiree Shirley, found him dead. According to Ms. Shirley, Mr. Shirley was employed at the time he died. The day before he died, Mr. Shirley went to work as usual. That evening, he helped his neighbor chop wood and then returned home and went to bed. He did not wake up the next morning.
¶ 5 The King County Medical Examiner performed an autopsy and listed the cause of death as Ex. 4 at 1. Mr. Shirley had a history of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, pancreatitis, smoking, and alcoholism. The autopsy report also indicated an enlarged heart.
¶ 6 The toxicology report indicated that Mr. Shirley's blood alcohol content was 0.07 grams per 100 mL, slightly lower than the state-presumed intoxication level of 0.08 grams per 100 mL. The report also indicated that the following additional substances were present in Mr. Shirley's blood at the time he died:
+-----------------------------------+
¦oxycodone ¦0.13 mg/L ¦
+-------------------+---------------¦
¦citalopram ¦0.43 mg/L ¦
+-------------------+---------------¦
¦desmethylcitalopram¦pos 1 mg/L ¦
+-------------------+---------------¦
¦Alprazolam ¦0.02 mg/L ¦
+-------------------+---------------¦
¦amitriptyline ¦0.10 mg/L ¦
+-------------------+---------------¦
¦Nortriptyline ¦0.11 mg/L ¦
+-------------------+---------------¦
¦Carbamazepine ¦1.2 mg/L ¦
+-------------------+---------------¦
¦acetaminophen ¦11.0 mg/L ¦
+-------------------+---------------¦
¦Promethazine ¦pos mg/L ¦
+-------------------+---------------¦
¦caffeine ¦pos ¦
+-------------------+---------------¦
¦nicotine/cotinine ¦pos ¦
+-----------------------------------+
Ex. 4 at 7. When his claim closed in 2005, Mr. Shirley was not being prescribed any of the medications found in the 2007 toxicology report.
¶ 7 The medical experts agreed the immediate cause of death was the combination of ethanol (alcohol), oxycodone, citalopram, alprazolam, amitriptyline, carbamazepine, and acetaminophen. The experts agreed that the levels of oxycodone and citalopram found in Mr. Shirley's blood during the autopsy were inconsistent with normal dosing. Dr. Jaymie Mai testified that the oxycodone level, while higher than normal dosage, was closer to a “therapeutic” level than a “toxic” level. Dr. Donald Reay testified the oxycodone was on the low end of the toxic range. The experts agreed that none of the drug levels in Mr. Shirley's blood were highly elevated. They also agreed that the combination of drugs and alcohol suppressed Mr. Shirley's respiration and gag reflex, causing him to suffocate. Neither the drugs alone nor the alcohol alone would have killed Mr. Shirley.
¶ 8 From the time Mr. Shirley was injured until he died—including the period between the 2005 claim closure and his 2007 death—Dr. Chester Jangala treated him for the effects of the industrial injury. Dr. Jangala testified in his deposition that Mr. Shirley experienced low back pain and depression that were causally related to the industrial injury. Of the substances found in Mr. Shirley's blood at the time of death, Dr. Jangala had prescribed oxycodone, citalopram, alprazolam, and amitriptyline. Dr. Jangala had prescribed the alprazolam and amitriptyline “in the distant past.” Jangala Deposition (Oct. 26, 2009) at 12–13.2 He testified that the prescriptions were related to the effects of Mr. Shirley's industrial injury. 3 Dr. Jangala testified that he was “usually fairly cautious” about warning patients not to mix medications or consume alcohol while taking certain medications, and it was “likely” that he counseled Mr. Shirley not to mix alcohol and medications.4 Jangala Deposition, at 26.
¶ 9 No evidence indicated that Mr. Shirley committed suicide. Dr. Jangala testified he was Jangala Deposition at 15. Dr. Jangala suspected that Mr. Shirley “was in a lot of pain and maybe tried one of something and it didn't help the pain, and he took a couple of something else and it still didn't help the pain and decided to take a couple more of something else and still didn't help the pain.” Jangala Deposition at 18. Dr. Reay reviewed the autopsy and toxicological findings and testified that “this would be a death that's attributed to multiple medications and probably taken in a therapeutic setting which caused death.” Reay Deposition at 29.
¶ 10 Ms. Shirley filed an application for survivor benefits under the Industrial Insurance Act, RCW 51.32.050(2)(a), which the Department denied. Ms. Shirley protested and the Department affirmed its order of denial. Ms. Shirley then appealed to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals. The industrial appeals judge found that Mr. Shirley's ingestion of alcohol simultaneously with multiple medications constituted an “independent, supervening cause which broke the causal connection between Mr. Shirley's industrial injury and his death.” Certified Appeal Board Record (CABR) at 45. Ms. Shirley appealed to the full Board, which reversed the industrial appeals judge and allowed the claim. CABR at 2–10, 28–31. The Board reasoned that The clear preponderance of the evidence ... is that Dr. Jangala prescribed opioids for Mr. Shirley's low back condition, which was caused by the industrial injury in 2004. But for Mr. Shirley's use of opioids, to address his industrially related back pain, Mr. Shirley's use of alcohol would not have caused his death.
CABR at 8. It concluded that Mr. Shirley's use of alcohol while taking prescription medications was against medical advice, but did not rise to the level of a supervening cause that would break the chain of causation and preclude benefits. CABR at 8–9.
¶ 11 The Department appealed to King County Superior Court and moved for summary judgment and denial of survivor benefits to Ms. Shirley. The court denied the Department's motion and affirmed the award of survivor benefits to Ms. Shirley, finding that the 2004 industrial injury proximately caused Mr. Shirley's death. The Department now appeals, arguing that Mr. Shirley's simultaneous ingestion of alcohol and multiple prescription medications was an intervening activity that broke the chain of causation between his industrial injury and his death, thereby precluding survivor benefits.
¶ 12 On review to the superior court, the Board's decision is prima facie correct and the burden of proof is on the party challenging the decision. RCW 51.52.115; Ruse v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 138 Wash.2d 1, 5, 977 P.2d 570 (1999). The superior court reviews the Board's decision de novo and may substitute its own findings and decision for the Board's if it finds from a “ ‘fair preponderance of credible evidence’ ” that the Board's findings and decision were incorrect. Ruse, 138 Wash.2d at 5–6, 977 P.2d 570 (quoting McClelland v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 65 Wash.App. 386, 390, 828 P.2d 1138 (1992)). Our review is governed by RCW 51.52.140, which provides that an “[a]ppeal shall lie from the judgment of the superior court as in other civil cases.” Because we do not sit in the same position as the superior court, we review only “ ‘whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's factual findings and then review, de novo, whether the trial court's conclusions of law flow from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meyers v. Ferndale Sch. Dist.
...is frequently considered as a chain of events without which a harm would not have occurred. See, e.g., Dep’t of Labor & Indus. v. Shirley, 171 Wash. App. 870, 884, 288 P.3d 390 (2012). Independent actors may also breach separate duties which in concurrence produce an injury. Stephens v. Omn......
-
Lunschen v. Department of Labor and Industries of State of Washington
...disability, ' not the claimant's 'subjective personally known condition as of the date of the aggravation.'" Shirley, 171 Wn.App. at 883 (emphasis in (quoting Scott Paper, 73 Wn.2d at 848). Lunschen's proposed instruction read, "A claimant's aggravation of a pre-existing industrial injury c......
-
Lunschen v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. of State
...review of claims filed under the [Washington Industrial Insurance Act (IIA)] is fairly limited." Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Shirley, 171 Wn. App. 870, 880, 288 P.3d 390 (2012). Our review of a worker compensation case "is akin to our review of any other superior court trial judgment: 'revie......
-
Birrueta v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. of State
...830 (2014) (the court may consult legislative history to resolve statutory ambiguity)); Dep't of Labor & Indus . , v. Shirley, 171 Wash.App. 870, 887–88, 288 P.3d 390 (2012) (significant Board decisions may be used as persuasive, nonbinding authority).2. Legislative history¶ 24 The legislat......