Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Washington Public Policy & Budget News : Freedom Foundation : WA State Tax & Labor Law Commentary & Updates

The Supreme Court issued opinions in three cases today.

Tobin v. Department of Labor and Industries, No. 81946-7. Jim Tobin was permanently disabled after being hit by a crane boom at work. He began collecting worker’s compensation benefits and sued the crane operator, settling for $1.4 million in damages, with about half of that amount being designated for pain and suffering. Under RCW 51.24.060, an injured worker is required to distribute a portion of a third-party recovery to the Department of Labor and Industries to reimburse the agency for worker’s compensation benefits. L&I informed Tobin that it would include the pain and suffering award he received in its calculation of what was owed the agency. Tobin argues the statute was designed to reimburse L&I for benefits paid, and L&I does not pay benefits for pain and suffering.

The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Barbara Madsen writing, agreed. The court held that chapter 51.24 RCW does not authorize L&I to seek reimbursement of damages awarded for pain and suffering. “[D]amages for ‘pain and suffering,’ like loss of consortium, constitute noneconomic damage that the workers’ compensation statutes do not compensate for. The Department did not pay out benefits for pain and suffering; therefore it cannot be ‘reimbursed’ from amounts recovered for pain and suffering. We hold that an award for pain and suffering may not be used by the Department in its distribution calculation.” Justice Mary Fairhurst dissented, arguing that the majority ignored the plain language of the recovery statute.

In Re Personal Restraint Petition of Cruze, No. 82567-0. Schawn James Cruze was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole under the “three strikes” provision of the Persistent Offender Accountability Act. Cruze filed a personal restraint petition arguing that the second conviction is not a most serious offense, or “strike.” However, Cruze filed his petition more than one year after his judgment and sentence became final, barring his claim unless the court could determine the sentencing was invalid on its face. The Supreme Court held that based on a plain reading of the statute, a deadly weapon verdict under the law includes a special verdict finding that a defendant was armed with a firearm. The court dismissed Cruze’s petition. Justice Susan Owens wrote the majority opinion. Justice Gerry Alexander wrote a dissent.

State v. Mitchell, No. 83169-6. This case hinges on the question of whether a child qualifies as a “dependent person” for purposes of the crime of criminal mistreatment. Marilea Mitchell and her boyfriend were charged with criminal mistreatment after starving the boyfriend’s four-year-old son almost to death. The statute refers to mistreatment of “a child or a dependent person,” and Mitchell was charged with mistreatment of a “dependent person.” Mitchell claims that the boy was a child, not a dependent person, and thus she was wrongly convicted. The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with Mitchell’s argument and upheld her conviction. Justice Richard Sanders wrote the opinion of the court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today the Court will hear three cases, two in the morning and one in the afternoon. (Docket, briefs)

In the morning session, starting at 9:00 a.m., the Court will hear:

Tobin v. Department of Labor and Industries, No. 81946-7. Jim Tobin was permanently disabled after being hit by a crane boom at work. He began collecting worker’s compensation benefits and sued the crane operator, settling for $1.4 million in damages. The majority of the damages were for pain and suffering. Under RCW 51.24.060, an injured worker is required to distribute a portion of a third-party recovery to the Department of Labor and Industries to reimburse the agency for worker’s compensation benefits. L&I claims that this includes a percentage of pain and suffering damages, since the statute says that “‘recovery’ includes all damages except loss of consortium.” Tobin argues statute was designed to reimburse L&I for benefits paid, and L&I does not pay benefits for pain and suffering.

Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors, No. 81590-9. Alex Salas, a construction worker, fell off a scaffolding ladder and sued the company that set up the scaffold. At trial, the court allowed evidence that Salas is an illegal alien as he sought damages for lost future wages. On appeal Salas argues the trial court abused its discretion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court decision.

In the afternoon session, starting at 1:30 p.m., the Court will hear:

State v. Schaler, No. 81864-9. Glen Schaler called Okanogan Behavioral Health Care after having a nightmare, stating that he thought he had killed his neighbor. He continued to talk with OBHC staff, at one point stating that he hoped he hadn't killed his neighbor with a knife because he wanted to do it with his bare hands. He was eventually taken in to the hospital. He continued to state his intention to kill his neighbors, and was later charged with two counts of felony harassment. Crimes like harassment that regulate pure speech must comply with the First Amendment by showing that the defendant's speech was unprotected. In the case of harassment, this can be done by showing that the speech was a “true threat”—a threat a reasonable person would take seriously. At trial, the judge instructed the jury on the definition of “threat,” but not “true threat.” Schaler appealed, claiming that this violated his First Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals held that it was harmless error.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link