Simpson Investment Company v. Reams, No. 32220-0-II (WA 4/25/2006)
| Decision Date | 25 April 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 32220-0-II,32220-0-II |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | SIMPSON INVESTMENT COMPANY, Appellant/Cross Respondent, v. JULIE REAMS, Respondent/Cross Appellant. |
Appeal from Superior Court of Mason County. Docket No. 03-2-00008-0. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 08/27/2004. Judge signing: Hon. Anna Marie Laurie.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Richard Paul Lentini, Attorney at Law, 1201 3rd Ave Ste 3400, Seattle, WA 98101-3034.
Counsel for Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Frederick Wayne Lieb, Putnam & Lieb, 907 Legion Way SE, Olympia, WA 98501-1520.
Julie A. Reams suffered two injuries during the month of June 2000 while employed by Simpson Timber Company (Simpson). Simpson appeals the trial court's denial of its motions for judgment as a matter of law to reverse the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals' (BIIA) findings that Reams was entitled to time loss compensation between November 1, 2000 and June 13, 2001, and that industrial injuries caused Reams' right shoulder condition. It also appeals the trial court's rulings (1) excluding evidence from Reams' applications for unemployment compensation and private short-term disability benefits; and (2) awarding Reams attorney fees. Reams cross-appeals the court's dismissal of her claim for injuries to her left shoulder and its limitation on her attorney fees award. We affirm the jury verdict, reverse the trial court's dismissal of Reams' left shoulder condition claim and its denial of attorney fees documented in Reams' attorney's second and third fee declarations, and remand the case for further proceedings.
Reams began working for Simpson on April 27, 2000, as a `Miscellaneous Relief' laborer. Administrative Record Transcript (AR Transcript) (Feb. 28, 2002) at 5. Reams' permanent employment with Simpson and union membership depended on her successful completion of an initial three month probationary period. During that period, Simpson reserved the right to terminate Reams for any reason.
On June 21, 2000, Reams was feeding rough cut boards into a chipper where they were reduced to chips and sawdust. Before reaching the chipper, boards projected from a conveyor belt and dropped onto a `shaker tray' that guided them into the chipper. AR Transcript (Feb. 26, 2002) at 96-97. When Reams attempted to remove boards jammed in the chipper's feeding area, the conveyor belt projected a board, striking the back of Reams' head (June 21 injury).1 Reams did not lose consciousness and continued to work. Although she began to experience headaches, dizziness, and tightness in her neck, and despite the emergence of a large lump on the back of her head shortly after the June 21 injury, Reams continued to work and did not report the incident or file an industrial injury application until October 5, 2000.2 The Department of Labor & Industries (Department) denied the claim on July 2, 2001, finding that Reams' condition was not the result of the alleged injury.
On June 30, 2000, `something popped' between Reams' shoulder blades when she was throwing 8-foot 2x4 studs into a container box (June 30 injury). AR Transcript at 105. Reams testified, however, that the June 30 injury did not immediately cause pain in her shoulders. Rather, the incident severely affected her legs, prompting her to call her supervisor, who provided her with an industrial injury claim number. On July 24, 2000, she filed a claim with the Department that was allowed on July 31, 2000. The Department closed that claim on March 16, 2001, ordering that time loss compensation be paid through September 24, 2000, with no permanent partial disability award.
Reams appealed the Department's denial of her June 21 injury claim and the closing of the June 30 injury claim. The BIIA reversed both Department orders, finding that (1) the June 21 injury caused `an aggravation of a preexisting asymptomatic lipoma, with resulting headaches and dizziness; an aggravation of a preexisting left shoulder condition and a new right shoulder condition; and muscular pain in her neck and back;' and (2) the June 30 injury caused `neck and back pain, and an aggravation of bilateral preexisting shoulder conditions.' Administrative Record (AR) at 8. Further, the BIIA explained that the June 21 and June 30 injuries collectively aggravated and lit up a latent preexisting degenerative condition in her right shoulder that resulted in an impingement syndrome.
The BIIA ordered the Department to require Simpson to allow the June 21 injury claim and `provide such further benefits as may be indicated or required by law.' AR at 10. Further, the BIIA ruled that Reams was temporarily and totally disabled between November 1, 2000 and June 13, 2001, and required that Simpson pay Reams time loss compensation for that period, in addition to a variety of back medical bills.
Simpson appealed the BIIA's decision to the Mason County Superior Court. At a pretrial hearing on May 2, 2004, the trial court excluded evidence that Reams' (1) unemployment benefits applications from December 2000 to February 2002 indicated that she was available and able to work and seeking employment; and (2) private disability benefits application signed in late January 2001 stated that she had not and would not seek unemployment benefits.
At the conclusion of the evidence at trial, Simpson filed five CR 50 motions for judgment as a matter of law.3 Reams filed a cross-motion, arguing that the evidence was clear that she was temporarily totally disabled between November 1, 2000 and June 13, 2001.
The trial court granted Simpson's CR 50 motion regarding Reams' alleged left shoulder condition, denied the other motions, and submitted all remaining issues to the jury. The jury affirmed all of the remaining BIIA rulings. Consequently, the trial court entered judgment on August 27, 2004, reversing the BIIA's findings of fact and conclusions of law on Reams' left shoulder condition and affirming all other BIIA rulings. Further, the trial court awarded Reams attorney fees and costs but limited them to the attorney's first fee declaration.
Following her June 2000 injuries, Reams visited Dr. Trygstad's office for the first time on July 5, 2000. Mr. Boeger, Trygstad's physician assistant, released Reams to light duty at Simpson after hearing the complaints related to the June 2000 injuries. Before the June 21 and June 30 injuries, Boeger had treated her for back, leg, abdominal, and shoulder pain since 1998. The record indicates that Boeger provided the majority of primary treatment for Reams. Trygstad provided secondary supervisory review but maintained familiarity with Reams' case.
Reams remained on light duty until August 3, 2000,4 when Boeger released her from work entirely on her complaint that Simpson gave her increasingly difficult physical assignments that worsened her back, headache, dizziness, and shoulder symptoms. Reams returned to light duty5 again on September 24, 2000, but thereafter complained of dizziness and headaches. Reams requested that Boeger release her from light duty on October 12, 2000, but Boeger denied the request. Boeger testified that as of October 12, 2000, there was no injury that would keep Reams from taking light duty work. Boeger further testified that on October 23, 2000, he and Trygstad concurred with the results of an independent medical examination (IME) that no objective reason existed for Reams to not return to work. But on November 1, 2000, Boeger again released Reams from work based on her continuing complaints of pain and dizziness and not on any new objective physical findings. Boeger explained that it was his opinion that the light duty fire watch job Simpson offered that required her to use a catwalk was unsafe due to her dizziness and headache complaints. Because Simpson did not propose a light duty job that Boeger felt was safe for Reams, he did not release her for either full or light duty work from November 1, 2000 through the last time he treated her in March 2001.
Dr. Chenault, an orthopedist, began treating Reams in December 2000. He testified initially that Reams was unable to work as of November 2000. But he later explained that while he thought Reams was unable to do her normal job, she was able to do some work as long as it did not involve heavy overhead lifting or repetitive overhead reaching.
Trygstad testified that Reams was unable to return to her job from November 2000 through June 2001. But he also explained that during that period, it may have been possible for Reams to participate in light duty work and that, to some degree, his opinion regarding her ability to work relied on her perception of that ability.
Reams volunteered at her friend's latte stand `off and on for four weeks' during October 2001.6 AR Transcript (Feb. 28, 2002) at 24. She worked by herself for three to five hours at a time. While this activity occurred after the relevant time period between November 2000 and June 2001, Reams testified that her shoulder condition was `about the same to worse' than it was in June 2001. AR Transcript at 40.
Reams also testified that during December 2000, she searched for less physically demanding jobs, such as clerical, office, cashier, and clerk work. She further testified that, given her education and labor background, she would have been able to find such a job `if there was jobs available, but the job markets {sic} really lousy right now.' AR Transcript (Feb. 26, 2002) at 137.
Boeger testified that in December 2000, he diagnosed Reams with several medical conditions relating to her right shoulder, that Reams' symptoms were consistent with right shoulder impingement syndrome, and that the conditions and impingement...
To continue reading
Request your trial