Harris v. State, Dept. of Labor and Industries
| Decision Date | 21 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 57875-3,57875-3 |
| Citation | 843 P.2d 1056,120 Wn.2d 461 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 61 USLW 2479 Alice HARRIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Washington, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, Respondent. |
Schroeter, Goldmark & Bender, Sidney S. Royer, Seattle, WA, for petitioner.
Christine O. Gregoire, Atty. Gen., and Maureen A. Mannix, Asst. Atty. Gen., Seattle, for respondent.
Bryan P. Harnetiaux, Robert H. Whaley, and Gary N. Bloom, Spokane, amicus curiae for Washington State Trial Lawyers Ass'n.
The petitioner, Alice Harris, the widow of Jack Harris, challenges a reduction in her husband's workers' compensation benefits pursuant to RCW 51.32.225. RCW 51.32.225(1) provides for a reduction in workers' compensation benefits for those receiving social security retirement benefits. It contains an exception to the reduction where a worker was "receiving permanent total disability benefits prior to July 1, 1986." Harris urges this court to construe this exception as including not only workers actually receiving benefits prior to July 1, 1986, but also those who are subsequently determined to have sustained permanently disabling injuries prior to that date. She also argues the statute violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions, as well as the vested rights clause, article 1, section 23, of the state constitution. In addition, amicus Washington State Trial Lawyers Association (hereafter WSTLA) contends that federal law preempts RCW 51.32.225.
We agree with the trial court's conclusion that Harris does not fall within the exception to the offset provision. 1 We also affirm the trial court's conclusion that RCW 51.32.225 violates neither the vested rights clause of our state constitution nor the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions. In addition, we hold that federal law does not preempt the offset contained in RCW 51.32.225.
The petitioner's husband, Jack Harris, filed an industrial insurance claim in June 1979 for work-related injuries caused by exposure to asbestos. The Department of Labor and Industries (hereafter the Department) accepted his claim and began paying Harris temporary total disability payments, also known as time-loss orders. Until recently, he received those payments. 2 Harris was examined numerous times from 1979 to 1986. The doctor who examined him repeatedly stated that his condition was permanent and that he did not expect that Harris would be able to return to work. Although Harris might have initiated an inquiry under RCW 51.32.055(2) to determine whether he was entitled to receive permanent total disability benefits, he did not do so.
RCW 51.32.225(1), which became effective July 1, 1986, provides:
For persons receiving compensation for temporary or permanent total disability under this title, the compensation shall be reduced by the department to allow an offset for social security retirement benefits payable under the federal social security, old age survivors, and disability insurance act, 42 U.S.C. This reduction shall not apply to any worker who is receiving permanent total disability benefits prior to July 1, 1986.
During legislative debate, two major justifications for the offset emerged: avoiding duplicative benefits and limiting the cost of industrial insurance. House floor remarks by Representatives Chandler and King on Second Reading of SHB 1875, 12 February 1986, 49th Legislature.
At the time RCW 51.32.225 became effective, Harris was 75 years old. He was collecting both federal social security retirement benefits and state temporary total disability payments. On August 11, 1986, the Department issued an order reducing Harris's compensation payments by the amount of social security retirement benefits he was receiving.
Harris appealed the Department's order to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (hereafter the Board). The Board considered only the statutory construction of RCW 51.32.225. The parties reserved the right to raise questions of fact or other legal and jurisdictional questions in further proceedings. The Industrial Appeals Judge affirmed the Department's decision to reduce Harris's temporary total disability benefits by the amount of social security retirement benefits Harris was receiving. He found that the exception to the offset provision contained in RCW 51.32.225(1) only applied to those who were actually receiving permanent total disability benefits as of July 1, 1986. Harris sought review by the full Board. On March 1, 1989, the Board affirmed that interpretation of RCW 51.32.225 by a 2-to-1 vote.
Harris appealed the Board's decision to the Superior Court of Mason County. The Department and Harris filed cross motions for summary judgment. Harris argued that the exception to the offset contained in RCW 51.32.225(1) should be construed as including not only those receiving permanent total disability payments as of July 1, 1986, but also those injured prior to that date who would subsequently be deemed eligible for such payments. Harris also argued that RCW 51.32.225 unconstitutionally abrogated vested rights and violated equal protection guaranties of both the federal and state constitutions. No preemption argument was made to the trial court. Harris also countered the Department's contention that reconsideration of unappealed time-loss orders are barred by res judicata.
On November 16, 1990, the Superior Court granted the Department's summary judgment motion. It rejected the constitutional challenges, and affirmed the Board's interpretation of the statute. It also found that unappealed department orders determining disability benefit levels are final and reconsideration of them is barred by res judicata. Harris sought direct review in this court. We accepted review, and now affirm the trial court.
Both federal and state governments have attempted to coordinate benefits paid to workers. In 1965, the federal government, fearing that duplicative state and federal benefits would erode state and federal programs and discourage workers from returning to work, passed legislation to coordinate benefits. For those under 65, federal law provides that the total of federal social security disability and old age benefits, when added to state or local workers' compensation, will be reduced if they exceed the higher of (1) 80 percent of the worker's former salary or (2) the total of federal disability and old age insurance benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 424a(a). The United States Supreme Court rejected a challenge to this federal offset program on due process and equal protection grounds in Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U.S. 78, 92 S.Ct. 254, 30 L.Ed.2d 231 (1971).
Several states, including Washington, have passed what are sometimes called "reverse offset provisions" which effectively shift costs back to the federal government by reducing state workers' compensation benefits to account for federal social security benefits. 2 Social Security Law and Practice § 26:66 (M. Rosenhouse ed. 1987). This court has upheld the validity of RCW 51.32.220, enacted originally in 1975, which reduced state workers' compensation benefits for those under 65 who were receiving federal old-age, survivors or disability benefits. Ravsten v. Department of Labor & Indus., 108 Wash.2d 143, 148-49, 736 P.2d 265 (1987). In 1986 the Legislature added RCW 51.32.225, the statute at issue in this case. It allows workers' compensation benefits to be reduced by the amount of federal social security retirement benefits a worker receives. In effect, RCW 51.32.225 extended Washington's reverse offset to cover those 65 and older who receive federal retirement benefits.
We first address the federal preemption argument because it raises the issue of whether the Legislature had the authority to enact RCW 51.32.225.
Amicus WSTLA raises for the first time the argument that RCW 51.32.225 violates the supremacy clause of the federal constitution. This court generally does not consider issues that are raised only by an amicus. State v. Gonzalez 110 Wash.2d 738, 752 n. 2, 757 P.2d 925 (1988); Coburn v. Seda, 101 Wash.2d 270, 279, 677 P.2d 173 (1984); see also RAP 12.1(a). We do, however, have inherent authority to consider issues not raised by the parties if necessary to reach a proper decision. Alverado v. WPPSS, 111 Wash.2d 424, 429-30, 759 P.2d 427 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1004, 109 S.Ct. 1637, 104 L.Ed.2d 153 (1989); see also RAP 12.1(b). This court in Alverado decided to consider a federal preemption issue not raised by the parties, noting that there is no dispute about the legal contours of federal preemption doctrine. Alverado, at 429-30, 759 P.2d 427.
Unlike the Alverado case, however, the preemption issue was not raised at the trial court. Generally, this court does not consider an issue that was not raised at the trial court. New Meadows Holding Co. v. Washington Water Power Co., 102 Wash.2d 495, 498, 687 P.2d 212 (1984); see also RAP 2.5(a). This court does, however, have discretion to consider issues not raised at the trial court. Obert v. Environmental Research & Dev. Corp., 112 Wash.2d 323, 333, 771 P.2d 340 (1989). It is appropriate to consider the preemption issue in this case in as much as numerous similar cases are currently pending that challenge the validity of RCW 51.32.225.
Amicus WSTLA argues that federal law expressly or implicitly preempts the offset provision of RCW 51.32.225. We start with the "basic assumption that Congress did not intend to displace state law." Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746, 101 S.Ct. 2114, 2128, 68 L.Ed.2d 576 (1981). Whether federal law preempts state action is largely a matter of statutory construction. L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 6-26, at 480 (2d ed. 1988).
The core of amicus's argument is that 42 U.S.C. § 424a(d) is evidence of congressional intent to preempt state reverse offsets...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevedoring Services of America, Inc. v. Eggert
...... The Court of Appeals held that the LHWCA preempts state" law remedies for overpayment. We reverse. . FACTS . \xC2"...Department of Labor & Indus., 317 U.S. 249, 63 S.Ct. 225, 87 L.Ed. 246 (1942), ...at 625 n. 7, 886 P.2d 1174. . In Harris v. Labor & Indus., 120 Wash.2d 461, 843 P.2d 1056 (1993), ... claims made by the Department of Labor and Industries. In Deal v. Department of Labor & Indus., 78 Wash.2d 537, ......
-
Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island
......, Spokane, WA, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys. . ... Washington Department of Ecology and Washington State Dept". of Community Trade & Economic Development. . \xC2"... Wash.2d 715, 721, 853 P.2d 1373 (1993)); see also Harris v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 120 Wash.2d 461, 468, 843 P.2d ......
-
Wilkinson v. Chiwawa Cmtys. Ass'n, Non-Profit Corp.
...from deciding legal issues the parties have not argued “[unless] necessary to reach a proper decision.” Harris v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 120 Wash.2d 461, 467–68, 843 P.2d 1056 (1993) (citing Alverado v. Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys., 111 Wash.2d 424, 429–30, 759 P.2d 427 (1988)); see alsoR......
-
Rayhall v. Akim Co., Inc.
...... offset violates the equal protection clause of the state and federal constitutions. 7 The . Page 809 . ....2d 796 (1999); standing; Connecticut Business & Industries Assn., Inc. v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care, 214 ...21, 40, 792 A.2d 835 (2002); Gartrell v. Dept. of Correction, 259 Conn. 29, 42-43, 787 A.2d 541 (2002); ... A.2d 1101, 1103 (Me.1994) (offset constitutional); Harris v. State Dept. of Labor & Industries, 120 Wash.2d 461, ......
-
Which Constitution? Eleven Years of Gunwall in Washington State
...(1992); Bedford v. Sugarman, 112 Wash. 2d 500, 772 P.2d 486 (1989). 52. See Harris v. Department of Labor and Indus., 120 Wash. 2d 461, 843 P.2d 1056 (1993); Holbrook v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 118 Wash. 2d 306, 822 P.2d 271 (1992); Clark v. Pacificorp, 118 Wash. 2d 167, 822 P.2d 162 (1991). 53. ......
-
Table of Cases
...(2004): 12.7(5) Harris v. Grange Insurance Ass'n, 73 Wn. App. 195, 868 P.2d 201 (1994): 20.8(3) Harris v. State Dep't of Labor & Indus., 120 Wn.2d 461, 843 P.2d 1056 (1993): 19.4(6) Harshman, In re Marriage of, 18 Wn. App. 116, 567 P.2d 667 (1977): 8.10 Hartley v. State, 103 Wn.2d 768, 698 ......
-
Denial of Recovery to Nonresident Beneficiaries Under Washington's Wrongful Death and Survival Statutes: Is it Really Cheaper to Kill a Man Than to Maim Him?
...347, 351-52 (1979). 85. Fusato, 93 Wash. App. at 767, 970 P.2d at 777. 86. Harris v. Dept. of Labor and Indus., 120 Wash. 2d 461, 477-78, 843 P.2d 1056, 1065(1993). 87. For purposes of this Comment, "equal protection" refers to a challenge brought under both the 14th Amendment of the United......
-
In Memoriam: Ralph Seeley
...the trial court unless it is necessary to reach a proper decision. See Harris v. The Dep't of Labor and Indus., 120 Wash. 2d 461, 469-70, 843 P.2d 1056, 1060-61 (1993). Here, the majority reasoned, analysis under the Due Process Clause would yield the same result as under the Equal Protecti......