Double D. Hop Ranch v. Sanchez
| Decision Date | 27 June 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 13922-1-III,13922-1-III |
| Citation | 918 P.2d 174,82 Wn.App. 390 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | DOUBLE D. HOP RANCH, Dept. of Labor & Industries, Respondents, v. Eduardo T. SANCHEZ, Appellant. |
Leslie V. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, Yakima, Rockney L. Jackson, Menke & Jackson, Yakima, for Respondents.
Linda A. Sellers, Halverson & Applegate, Yakima, Amicus Curiae.
Washington law provides for two methods of computing monthly wages for purposes of Department of Labor and Industries workers' compensation claims--one for workers employed year-round (RCW 51.08.178(1)) and one for exclusively seasonal workers
(RCW 51.08.178(2)). The trial court here concluded that Eduardo T. Sanchez's employment was exclusively seasonal in nature. The primary question presented is whether a general farm worker whose pattern was to work from March to November, but whose job can be performed throughout the year, was employed exclusively seasonal. We conclude that he was and affirm the trial court.
In May 1988, the Double D. Hop Ranch (Double D) hired Mr. Sanchez as a general farm laborer. In 1988, he worked from May through October. In 1989, Mr. Sanchez worked from February until early November. In 1990, he worked from February until November 9, when he was injured on the job. As a general farm laborer, Mr. Sanchez worked at a number of different tasks, including planting and cultivating hops, digging ditches, driving a tractor and other odd jobs.
On November 26, 1991, the Department of Labor and Industries (the Department) awarded Mr. Sanchez monthly time loss compensation. It based that compensation on the conclusion that Mr. Sanchez was a seasonal worker (RCW 51.08.178(2)). The statute requires that the Department calculate the monthly time loss rate on an average of wages for "any twelve successive calendar months preceding the injury which fairly represent the claimant's employment pattern." RCW 51.08.178(2). The Department averaged Mr. Sanchez's wages from the fourth quarter of 1989 through the third quarter of 1990.
Mr. Sanchez appealed the Department's order to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (the Board). He argued that his employment was not exclusively seasonal and his benefits should therefore have been based on "the monthly wages [he] was receiving from all employment at the time of injury...." RCW 51.08.178(1). Following a hearing, the Board's Industrial Appeals Judge (IAJ) issued a proposed decision and order that Mr. Sanchez was not a Double D appealed to the Yakima County Superior Court. The superior court concluded Mr. Sanchez was a seasonal worker based on his work history. He appeals.
seasonal or part-time worker. Both Double D and the Department appealed the proposed decision and order. The Board denied the petitions for review and adopted the IAJ's decision.
Employment Exclusively Seasonal in Nature. The question presented requires a two-step analysis. We must first decide what the Legislature meant by "the worker's employment is exclusively seasonal in nature." Ravsten v. Department of Labor & Indus., 108 Wash.2d 143, 150, 736 P.2d 265 (1987) (). We must then decide whether the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's finding that Mr. Sanchez's employment "would not have existed during the cold-weather months of the winter of 1990-1991." See Ravsten, 108 Wash.2d at 146, 736 P.2d 265 ().
Mr. Sanchez argues that we should accord "substantial weight" to the Department's interpretation of these statutes. Flanigan v. Department of Labor & Indus., 65 Wash.App. 119, 121, 827 P.2d 1082 (1992), aff'd in part, rev'd & remanded in part, 123 Wash.2d 418, 869 P.2d 14 (1994). And certainly the expertise of administrative bodies is a valuable aid in interpreting legislation and filling in legislative gaps. Balser Invs., Inc. v. Snohomish County, 59 Wash.App. 29, 37, 795 P.2d 753 (1990). He also correctly urges that we should liberally construe the industrial insurance act to afford those benefits or remedies provided under the act. Sacred Heart Medical Ctr. v. Carrado, 92 Wash.2d 631, 635, 600 P.2d 1015 (1979); Wilber v. Department of Labor & Indus., 61 Wash.2d 439, 446, 378 P.2d 684 (1963).
We turn then to the Department's interpretation of the three pivotal words of RCW 51.08.178(2)--employment, exclusively and seasonal:
the term "employment" means the work history or career pattern of the worker. "Exclusively" means that the employment is entirely dependent upon the seasons. "Seasonal" infers that the nature of the work is such that it can only be performed at certain times of the year.
Industrial Insurance Division, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Claims Administration Policy Memo, Policy 4.41 (June 2, 1988) (hereinafter 1988 Policy Memo ). 1
Were we to focus only on the terms "exclusively" and "seasonal," as Mr. Sanchez does, his reading of the statute would control. Certainly his job responsibilities were not dependent on the seasons. But "exclusively" and "seasonal" qualify the term "worker's employment." We are required to give effect to every word in the statute. Dennis v. Department of Labor & Indus., 109 Wash.2d 467, 479, 745 P.2d 1295 (1987). The term "worker's employment," as defined by the Department, focuses our inquiry on the worker whose employment record is under consideration. It is "the work history or career pattern of the worker." 1988 Policy Memo.
The question before us then is not whether a "general farm laborer's" work is exclusively seasonal. Based on Mr. Sanchez's evidence, we would have to conclude it is not. Mr. Sanchez performed a variety of tasks entirely unrelated to the seasons such as stacking posts, repairing machinery, and spreading cow manure. The question is rather whether Mr. Sanchez's "work history or career pattern" was exclusively seasonal. And here, his career pattern and work history was one of exclusively seasonal work. During his employment with Double D, Mr. Sanchez never worked during the months of December, January and February.
Were we to focus on the job rather than the work history, it is possible that employment would never be found to be seasonal. Department of Parks v. Kinslow, 481 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Ky.1972) ( ). Our interpretation of the statute is also in accord with its legislative history. During consideration of the bill adopting this section, a question directly addressed the purpose of the provision:
Mr. Patrick: ... [I]s it the intent that the language ... which establishes the wage base on any twelve successive calendar months preceding the injury which fairly represents the claimant's employment pattern, mean the claimant's current employment pattern?
Mr. Wang: The answer is "Yes."
House Journal, 50th Leg., at 1086 (1988).
We also conclude that "exclusively seasonal in nature" refers to the party's employment that is intermittent and part-time rather than restricted to a particular season. Limiting the phrase to employment exclusively in a particular season ignores the distinction between "season" which is a "time or period" and "seasonal" which is more general and refers to "relating to" or "being affected by seasons." 2 Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language 2049 (1969). The broader meaning of "seasonal" includes those jobs not only limited to a particular season but also those jobs related to a season or affected by a season. Cf. Adams v. Department of Labor & Indus., 74 Wash.App. 626, 628, 875 P.2d 8 (1994) (), aff'd, 128 Wash.2d 224, 905 P.2d 1220 (1995).
Each year Mr. Sanchez was unemployed during approximately the same period of the year. His employment was normally and exclusively related to a particular time or period of time.
Substantial Evidence. The next question is whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that "his employment would not have existed during the cold-weather months of the winter of 1990-1991."
The findings and decisions of the Board are prima facie correct and the party attacking them bears the burden of proof. Belnap v. Boeing Co., 64 Wash.App. 212, 216-17, 823 P.2d 528 (1992). The party attacking the findings must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the findings of the Board are incorrect. Ravsten v. Department of Labor & Indus., 108 Wash.2d 143, 146, 736 P.2d 265 (1987); Belnap, 64 Wash.App. at 217, 823 P.2d 528. We will affirm if substantial evidence supports the court's findings. Ravsten, 108 Wash.2d at 146, 736 P.2d 265; Belnap, 64 Wash.App. at 217, 823 P.2d 528.
The superior court entered the following findings after reviewing the Board's record:
4. There was no work available for Mr. Sanchez at Double D from early November, 1988 through mid-March, 1989. Mr. Sanchez did not seek other employment and did not work during this period of time.
5. There was no work available for Mr. Sanchez at Double D from early November, 1989 through late February, 1990. Mr. Sanchez did not seek other employment and did not work during this period of time.
....
7. If Eduardo Sanchez had not been injured on November 9, 1990, his employment would not have existed during the cold-weather months of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Double D Hop Ranch v. Sanchez
...one raised the issue, I would affirm the decision of the Board. ALEXANDER, MADSEN and SMITH, JJ., concur. 1 Double D. Hop Ranch v. Sanchez, 82 Wash.App. 390, 918 P.2d 174 (1996).2 RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).3 Multicare Med. Ctr. v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 114 Wash.2d 572, 589, 790 P.2d......
-
School Dist. No. 401 v. Minturn, 17459-6-II
...part-time employment is one type of intermittent employment. For a discussion of seasonal employment, see Double D. Hop Ranch v. Sanchez, 82 Wash.App. 390, 918 P.2d 174 (1996).4 RCW 51.08.178(2).5 A substantially similar example is discussed at pages 21-23 of the Department's supplemental b......