Kristi Freeman v. Willapa Harbor Hospital ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
WILLAPA HARBOR HOSPITAL AND NO. 73664-7-1
THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
CT>
INDUSTRIES OF THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON,
Respondents,
DIVISION ONE
CD
CO
KRISTI FREEMAN, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant. FILED: December 14, 2015
Lau, J. — Under well settled law, judicial appeal of a decision by the Board of
Industrial Insurance Appeals (the Board) is de novo, but is based solely on the evidence
and testimony presented to the Board. Here, the trial court exceeded its authority when
it granted Willapa Harbor Hospital's Civil Rule 35 motion and remanded to the Board
with instructions to allow supplementation of the record with additional evidence. We
reverse the trial court's order, lift the stay previously imposed, and remand to the trial
court with instructions to reinstate the jury trial.
No. 73664-7/2
FACTS
On March 11, 2011, Kristi Freeman sustained an injury while working as a
registered nurse at Willapa Harbor Hospital (the Hospital). She filed a workers'
compensation claim with the Hospital, a self-insured employer. She received medical
care and benefits under her claim. During the course of her treatment, questions
surfaced over a possible mental health condition related to her recovery.
On July 31, 2012, the Hospital scheduled Freeman for an independent mental
health evaluation (IME) to be performed by Dr. Richard Schneider. After evaluating
Freeman, he concluded that Freeman's pain disorder was preexisting and not caused or
aggravated by her work injury. He recommended treatment from a pain psychologist.
On September 25, 2012, Monty Meier, Ph.D., a pain psychologist, evaluated
Freeman and concluded that she suffered from a mental health condition causally
related to the work injury. Dr. Schneider reviewed Meier's evaluation and adhered to
his prior opinion.
On October 9, 2012, Freeman requested the Department of Labor and Industries
(the Department) to order allowance of her mental health condition under her claim.
On October 19, 2012, the Hospital informed the Department that it planned to
schedule Freeman for a second examination by Dr. Schneider to evaluate whether her
condition had worsened or changed.
On December 19, 2012, the Hospital informed Freeman that it scheduled an
evaluation with Dr. Schneider. The same day, the Department entered an order
denying coverage for Freeman's pain disorder.
-2-
No. 73664-7/3
Freeman responded by notifying the Hospital that she would not attend the
evaluation with Dr. Schneider.
On January 23, 2013, Freeman appealed the Department's December 2012
order.
On April 18, 2013, the Hospital moved the Board under CR 351 for an order
compelling Freeman to submit to a mental health evaluation. The Hospital argued it
expected Freeman to claim her condition had worsened.
On May 7, 2013, an Industrial Appeals Judge (IAJ) denied the Hospital's CR 35
motion. The IAJ reasoned that another examination was unnecessary because the
question was not whether Freeman's condition had changed, but whether it was
causally related to her workplace injury:
In this case, the Employer has not shown that there is a change of
circumstances that necessitates subjecting the claimant to another examination
by the same IME doctor who evaluated her less than one year ago and already
opined that her pain disorder condition was not proximately caused or
aggravated by her industrial injury. I agree with the claimant that to the extent
that her pain disorder may have worsened, it is not relevant to the issue on
appeal, which is simply acceptance of the condition. In addition, without a
showing of a change of circumstances by the Employer, it would be unfair to
require the claimant to submit to another mental status examination that is likely
to cause her more stress and has the potential for emotional harm.
Certified Board Record (CBR) at 152.
1 CR 35(a)(1) provides:
When the mental or physical condition ... of a party, or of a person in the
custody or under the legal control of a party, is in controversy, the court in
which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a physical
examination by a physician, or a mental examination by a physician or
psychologist or to produce for examination the person in the party's
custody or legal control. The order may be made only on motion for good
cause shown and upon notice to the person to be examined and to all
parties and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of
the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.
-3-
No. 73664-7/4
On May 13, 2013, the Hospital filed an interlocutory appeal with the Board. The
Board declined review of the Hospital's interlocutory appeal.
On June 24, 2013, the IAJ presided over a hearing on the question of whether
Freeman's mental condition was related to her injury. After considering evidence and
testimony from both parties, the IAJ reversed the Department's December 19 order and
concluded Freeman's "pain disorder with a general medical condition and psychological
factors" should be accepted as proximately caused by her industrial injury. CBR at 43.
On December 3, 2013, the Hospital petitioned for review from the Board.
On December 18, 2013, the Board denied review and the Hospital appealed to
Pacific County Superior Court.
On September 11, 2014, the Hospital filed a motion with the superior court
entitled, "MOTION FOR CR 35 EXAMINATION." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 2. In an
attached affidavit,2 trial counsel described the procedural history before the Board and
claimed the Hospital lost the chance to update its medical assessment when Freeman
refused to attend the scheduled examination and its CR 35 motion was denied.
Counsel further alleged that these actions denied it due process.
Freeman argued in response, "Willapa's motion is more accurately an appeal of
the Board's denial of its earlier motion for a CR 35 exam. As such, Willapa fails to
establish the Board abused its discretion when it denied Willapa's earlier motion." CP at
21.
2 The affidavit was entitled "SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER'S AFFIDAVIT IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CR 35 MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION." CP at 4.
-4-
No. 73664-7/5
On September 26, 2014, Freeman argued to the trial court that its authority is
limited under RCW 51.52.115:
I do though, Your Honor, feel that as an officer of the court, I need to make
the Court aware of RCW 51.52.115. That is that statute that discusses the
standard of—the burden of proof in an appeal that's taken from the Board
to Superior Court. In that statute it states that this actually—that there's
going to be no new facts entered into the record. The record is as set
below unless there is some sort of procedural mishandling or issue that's
brought up that's not aired out in the record.
RP(Sept. 26, 2014) at 18-19.
On October 3, 2014, the trial court issued an order granting the Hospital's motion
for a CR 35 examination. The order directed the Board to supplement the record with
additional evidence from Dr. Schneider and to allow Freeman to supplement the record
with additional evidence if necessary.
THIS MATTER came before the Court on September 26, 2014 on a
motion by the Self-Insured Employer, Willapa Harbor Hospital, for the
granting of a CR 35 mental health examination that was denied by the
assigned Industrial Appeals Judge, Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals.
Said motion was based upon affidavits on file with the Court. After
considering the substance of the motion, arguments of counsel, and being
otherwise fully advised, the Court does herby [sic] find that the motion for
a CR 35 mental health examination by Dr. Richard Schneider is herby [sic]
granted and the matter is remanded to the Board of Industrial Insurance
Appeals with direction to allow the Self-Insured Employer, Willapa Harbor
Hospital, [sic] have a mental health examination of the claimant by Dr.
Richard Schneider and to thereafter supplement the record with additional
evidence from the testimony of Dr. Schneider and in addition to grant the
claimant the opportunity to supplement the record with further medical
evidence, if deemed necessary.
CP at 32-33.
On October 8, 2014, the trial court entered an order striking the previously
scheduled jury trial.
No. 73664-7/6
Freeman appeals.3
ANALYSIS
Both parties argue the propriety of the trial court's ruling under CR 35's good
cause requirement. Under the limited circumstances presented here, the parties'
arguments implicate the court's statutory authority to order the relief it granted.
The Industrial Insurance Act abolished all jurisdiction of the courts of this state for
workers' injuries except as set out in RCW 51.52.110. Fay v. Nw. Airlines. Inc., 115
Wn.2d 194, 197, 796 P.2d 412 (1990); RCW 51.04.010. "Appeals from administrative
tribunals invoke the appellate, not the general or original, jurisdiction of the superior
court." Fay, 115 Wn.2d at 197. "Jurisdiction of the superior court is limited to review of
departmental proceedings on appeals from orders of the Board." Dils v. Dep't of Labor
& Indus.. 51 Wn. App. 216, 217, 752 P.2d 1357(1988); RCW 51.52.110-115.
"The Industrial Insurance Act, [chapter 51.52 RCW], provides for de novo
superior court review of the Board's determination." Cascade Valley Hosp. v. Stach.
152 Wn. App. 502, 506, 215 P.3d 1043 (2009); see also Rogers v. Dep't of Labor and
Indus., 151 Wn. App. 174, 179, 210 P.3d 355 (2009). Under RCW 51.52.115, the
superior court reviews the Board's determinations de novo, applying the standards set
out in RCW 51.52.115:
The Board's decision is prima facie correct under RCW 51.52.115, and a
party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a
preponderance of the evidence. On review, the superior court may
substitute its own findings and decision for the Board's only if it finds "from
a fair preponderance of credible evidence, that the Board's findings and
decision are incorrect."
3 After the appeal was filed, Division Two of this court granted Freeman's motion
to stay the superior court's order pending the resolution of this appeal.
-6-
No. 73664-7/7
Ruse v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.. 138 Wn.2d 1, 5, 977 P.2d 570 (1999) (citation omitted)
(quoting McClelland v. ITT Ravonier. Inc.. 65 Wn. App. 386, 390, 828 P.2d 1138(1992)).
Although review is de novo, under RCW 51.52.115 superior court review is
limited to the proceedings below and the record before the Board.4 The superior court
may only take testimony in cases of alleged procedural irregularities before the Board
not shown in the record:
The hearing in the superior court shall be de novo, but the court shall not
receive evidence or testimony other than, or in addition to, that offered
before the board or included in the record filed by the board in the superior
court as provided in RCW 51.52.110: PROVIDED, That in cases of
alleged irregularities in procedure before the board, not shown in said
record, testimony thereon may be taken in the superior court.
RCW 51.52.115 (emphasis added). Absent an alleged procedural irregularity, the
superior court reviews the Board's decision based solely on the evidence and testimony
presented to the Board. Stelter v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.. 147 Wn.2d 702, 707, 57 P.3d
248 (2002).
On appeal, RCW 51.52.140 governs our review of the superior court decision.
RCW 51.52.140 states that "[a]ppeal shall lie from the judgment of the superior court as
in other civil cases." We review the superior court's CR 35 decision for an abuse of
discretion. A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is manifestly unreasonable or
is based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons. Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156
Wn.2d 677, 684, 132 P.3d 115 (2006). If the trial court's ruling is based on an
4 Unlike the Administrative Procedure Act chapter 34.05 RCW, chapter 51.52
RCW contains no provision authorizing the trial court to remand a matter to an agency
for further fact finding. See RCW 34.05.562.
-7-
No. 73664-7/8
erroneous view of the law or involves application of an incorrect legal analysis it
necessarily abuses its discretion. Dixv. ICT Group. Inc.. 160 Wn.2d 826, 834, 161 P.3d
1016(2007).
The trial court lacked authority to grant the CR 35 motion and order remand to
the Board for additional evidence. The Hospital cites no authority to support the relief
ordered here. Where no authorities are cited in support of a proposition, the court may
assume that counsel, after diligent search, has found none. Lodis v. Corbis Holdings.
Inc.. 172 Wn. App. 835, 862, 292 P.3d 779 (2013).56
CONCLUSION
Under the unique circumstances presented in this case, we conclude that the
superior court erred by granting the Hospital's CR 35 motion and remanding to the
Board to reopen the evidentiary record. We reverse the superior court's order, lift the
previously imposed stay, and remand to the trial court with instructions to reinstate the
jury trial.
WE CONCUR:
|^\vKfc>/ j 4
5 At oral argument to this court, the Hospital claimed this issue was not raised in
the briefing or below. The Hospital is mistaken. Review of the record shows Freeman
discussed RCW 51.52.115 both in her briefing before this court and in the superior
court.
6 We do not decide the question of when, or under what circumstances, the
superior court may remand to the Board to reopen the evidentiary record.
-8-