Clauson v Dept Labor and Industries :: 130 Wn2d 580
Category: Bureaucracy and Documents
As Justice Talmadge points out in the opening of his dissent: “The majority decides a worker may be 160 percent disabled . . . defies logic, common sense, a fundamental tenet of the Industrial Insurance Act, and nearly 65 years of this Court’s decisions to the contrary.” [at 586].
He concludes that a permanent total disability and a partial permanent disability are incompatible. .” . . unless, as the majority appears to conclude, the scheduled [partial disability] benefits constitute general tort damages rather than replacement income. The majority’s conclusion is a significant departure from the firmly-established principle that industrial insurance in Washington exists to replace an injured worker’s lost earning capacity. It is for the Legislature to bring about such a fundamental policy change, not this Court.” [at 594].
If the majority decision stands the test of time, I wonder how many body parts can sustain injury in order to collect 500 percent of lost earnings, or more? Once again, the majority relies on close scrutiny of the dictionary and comes to the conclusion that we are not responsible for our own actions.
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Allan, Lesley | |
| pass | Durham, Barbara | |
| pass | Gregoire, Christine | |
| pass | Talmadge, Phil | |
| pass | Whaley, Robert | |
| fail | Alexander, Gerry | |
| fail | Dolliver, James | |
| fail | Guy, Richard | |
| fail | Johnson, Charles | |
| fail | Madsen, Barbara | |
| fail | Milhem, Robert | |
| fail | Munson, Ray | |
| fail | Sanders, Richard | |
| fail | Schultheis, John | |
| fail | Smith, Charles | |
| fail | Sweeney, Dennis |