## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
JAMES D. GOODMAN, Respondent, —1 C~

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant,
and AIRBORNE EXPRESS, INC., Appellant. No. 73665-5-1

— DIVISION ONE 33» c0' UNPUBLISHED OPINION

-*-

FILED: January 11, 2016 Trickey, J. — Airborne Express, Inc. appeals from a superior court order reversing the decision of the Board ofIndustrial InsuranceAppeals. The superior court concluded that James D. Goodman, Airborne's former employee, has been permanently and totally disabled since February 10, 2011. Because the superior courtfailed to apply the proper standard ofreview to the Board's finding of fact on

a material issue, we reverse and remand.
FACTS In March 2002, Goodman was involved in an automobile accident while working as a delivery driver for Airborne Express. Goodman's vehicle was broadsided at an intersection, and he was thrown onto the floor. He sustained injuries to hisneck, shoulder, and arms. Hesought treatmentfrom severaldoctors and eventually had surgery for his injuries.No. 73665-5-1 / 2 Following the accident, Goodman brought a claim for workers' compensation benefits. On December 3, 2010, the Department of Labor and Industries (Department) determined that Goodman's medical conditions related to the injury were stable. It directed Airborne to pay Goodman a permanent partial disability award of 14 percent of the amputation value of the right arm at or above the deltoid insertion or by disarticulation at the shoulder, and a permanent partial disability award of Category 2 of permanent cervical and cervico-dorsal impairments. It closed Goodman's claim. On February 10, 2011, the Department
affirmed its order. Goodman appealed the Department's February 10 order to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals. In his notice of appeal, he asked for the "[cjlaim to remain open, treatment, time loss, increased [permanentpartial disability,] PPD,
or in the alternative permanent pension."1 The Board granted the appeal. The
case proceeded to an Industrial Appeals Judge (IAJ), where the parties presented lay, vocational, and medical expert testimony. On January 17, 2013, the IAJ issued a proposed decision and order. The IAJ determined that as ofJanuary 7, 2009 through February 10, 2011, Goodman was not able to perform and obtain gainful employment and was a "temporarily totally disabled worker."2 The IAJ also determined that Goodman's conditions were not fixed and stable as of February 10, 2011. In making this latter determination, the IAJ found, infinding of fact 3, that the industrial injury was the proximate cause ofleft-sided carpal tunnel syndrome. Because surgeryfor the

1 Clerk's Papers (CP) at 866. 2 CP at 22.No. 73665-5-1 / 3 carpal tunnel syndrome was not performed until May 2011, the IAJ reasoned that itwas "premature to rate the extent ofMr. Goodman's permanent disability, either partial or total."3 It concluded that the matter should be remanded to the Department to provide further proper and necessary treatment. Goodman petitioned the Board for review ofthe proposed order. He argued that the IAJ erred in not finding him permanently totally disabled. Goodman did not challenge the lAJ's finding that the left-sided carpal tunnel syndrome was related to his industrial injury. In response, Airborne requested that the Board affirm the proposed order. It argued that Goodman's left-sided carpal tunnel syndrome was notfixed and stable as of February 10, 2011. Airborne also argued that if the Board found Goodman fixed and stable as to all conditions, then Goodman was employable on a reasonably continuous full-time basis. On April 17, 2013, the Board issued its decision and order. The Board acknowledged that Goodmandid not dispute the lAJ'sdetermination to allow his left-sided carpal tunnel syndrome condition under the claim. Observing that industrial insurance claims should be kept open until all industrially related conditions have become fixed and stable, the Board agreed that it could not determine whether Goodman had become permanently totally disabled as of February 2011. It concluded that Goodman was a temporarily totally disabled workerfrom January 7, 2009 through February 10, 2011. And it concluded that as ofFebruary 10,2011, Goodman's conditions were notfixed and stable. It reversed the Department's order and remanded the matter to the Departmentwith direction

3CPat19.No. 73665-5-1/4 to find Goodman not entitled to time-loss compensation benefits from August 22, 2008 through January 6, 2009, to direct Airborne to pay time-loss compensation benefits from January 7, 2009 through February 10, 2011, and to provide Goodman with further proper and necessary medical treatment. Goodman appealed to the Pierce County Superior Court. Prior to trial, Goodman moved to clarify the issues. He argued that because Airborne did not appeal the Board's order, the issue should be limited to temporary totaldisability or permanenttotal disability. In response, Airborne argued that the scope ofreview was not limited to the issues presented by Goodman, but instead, that all of the issues raised in Goodman's notice of appeal to the Board and tried expressly or impliedly by the parties were before the court. The court agreed with Goodman that the issues were limited to temporary totaldisability orpermanenttotaldisability based on Airborne'sfailure to appeal the Board's order. It entered an order to that

effect. Following a benchtrial, the superiorcourt reversed the Board's order. The courtfound, in finding of fact 1.5, that the industrial injury was not the proximate
cause of the left-sided carpal tunnel syndrome. It concluded that Goodman has 

### beenpermanently totally disabled sinceFebruary 10, 2011. It remanded theclaim to the Departmentwith directionsto place Goodman on the pension rolls. Airborne appeals. ANALYSIS "In an industrial insurance case, we review the decision ofthe trial court, not the decision of the Board." Dillon v. Dep't of Labor &Indus., 186 Wn. App. 1, 6,

4No. 73665-5-1 / 5 344 P.3d 1216 (2014), review denied, 183 Wn.2d 1021, 355 P.3d 1152 (2015); RCW 51.52.140. Our review is akin to our review of other superior court 

### judgments. Dillon, 186Wn. App. at 6. "'[W]e review whether substantial evidence 

### supports the trial court's factual findings and then review, de novo, whether the trial court's conclusions of lawflow from the findings.'" Rogers v. Deo't of Labor & 

### Indus., 151 Wn. App. 174, 180, 210 P.3d 355 (2009) (quoting Watson v. Dep't of Labor& Indus.. 133 Wn. App. 903, 909, 138 P.3d 177 (2006)). Carpal Tunnel Syndrome 

### Airborne challengesthesuperiorcourt'sfinding of fact 1.5, thattheindustrial 

### injury is not the proximate cause of left-sided carpal tunnel syndrome. Airborne 

### argues thatthe superiorcourtexceeded the scope ofits review when itmade this finding. Airborne also arguesthatthe superiorcourtappliedthe improperstandard of review. We address these arguments in turn. Scope ofReview 

### Airborne first argues that the superior court exceeded its scope of review when it found that Goodman's left-sided carpal tunnel syndrome is not causally related to the industrial injury. We disagree. 

### RCW 51.52.115 governs the superior court's review of decisions by the Board. In relevant part itstates: 

### Upon appeals to the superior court, only such issues of law orfact 

### may be raised as were properly included in the notice ofappeal to the board, or in the complete record of the proceedings before the 

### board. 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.No. 73665-5-1 / 6 Accordingly, "asuperior court'sauthorityto determinean issue... 'depends 

### upon whether ornotthe Board properly addressed thatissue.'" Matthews v. Dep't of Labor &Indus.. 171 Wn. App. 477, 491, 288 P.3d 630 (2012) (quoting Hanguet v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 75 Wn. App. 657, 663-64, 879 P.2d 326 (1994)). 

### "[Although the superior court is limited to considering only the record before the 

### Board, the superior court has no limitation upon the intensity of its review." Hanguet, 75 Wn. App. at 665-66. 

### Here, the parties do not dispute that Goodman's notice ofappeal to the Board was broad. He asked for the "[cjlaim to remain open, treatment, time loss, 

### increased PPD, or in the alternative permanent pension."4 The issue ofcarpal 

### tunnel syndrome causation falls within the subjects raised in the notice ofappeal. Thus, based on theplain language ofRCW 51.52.115, thesuperior court had the authority to review this issue. Airborne contends that Goodman's subsequent petition for review to the 

### Board further narrowed the superior court's scope ofreview. In his petition for 

### review, Goodman did not challenge the finding that the industrial injury was the proximate cause ofthe carpaltunnel syndrome. 

### To supportthis argument, Airborne relies on RCW 51.52.104. Thatstatute 

### provides that any party may file with the Board awritten petition for review ofthe proposed decision and order ofthe IAJ. RCW 51.52.104 further states, "Such petition for review shall set forth in detail the grounds therefor and the party or 

### parties filing the same shall be deemed to have waived all objections or

4 CP at 866.No. 73665-5-1 / 7 irregularities not specifically set forth therein." RCW 51.52.104 did not prohibit the superior court from considering the issue of carpal tunnel syndrome causation. As stated earlier, this issue was properly beforethe superiorcourtbased on the plain language ofRCW 51.52.115. Goodman's petition forreview was not relevantfor purposes ofRCW 51.52.115. Airborne cites several cases holding that, under RCW 51.52.104, a party 

### waives legal arguments notpresentedtothe Board in thepetition for review. None ofthemhold that the superiorcourt's scope ofreview islimited to issues presented 

### in thepetition for review. See Leuluaialii v. Deo't ofLabor &Indus., 169 Wn. App. 672, 684, 279 P.3d 515 (2012), Merlino Const, v. City of Seattle, 167Wn. App. 609, 616n.3, 273 P.3d 1049(2012), Allen v. Dep't ofLabor &Indus., 66Wn. App. 

### 415, 422, 832 P.2d 489 (1992), Hill v. Dep'tofLabor &Indus., 90 Wn.2d 276, 280, 580 P.2d 636 (1978). Thus, Airborne's reliance on those cases ismisplaced. 

### Finally, we note that the Department ofLabor and Industries submitted an appellate brief addressing this issue. The Department advances the same arguments as Airborne. Because we have already addressed thesearguments,

we need not consider the Department's brief. Standard ofReview Airborne next argues that the superior court failed to apply the proper standard of reviewwhen itfound that Goodman's left-sided carpal tunnel syndrome is not causally related to the industrial injury. We agree. The Board's decision is prima facie correct under RCW 51.52.115. The 

### superior court may substitute its own findings and decision for the Board's only ifNo. 73665-5-1 / 8 it finds from a fair preponderance of credible evidence that the Board's findings and decision are incorrect. Ruse v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 138 Wn.2d 1, 5, 977 P.2d 570 (1999). Ifthe courtfinds the evidence to be evenly balanced, then the Board'sfindings must stand. Jeosen v. Dep't ofLabor &Indus., 89 Wn.2d 394, 401, 573 P.2d 10 (1977). 

### Here, in finding offact 1.5, the courtfound that"[t]he industrial injury

... is 

### not the proximate cause of

. . . left-sided carpal tunnel syndrome."5 This contradicted the Board's finding of fact 3, that the industrial injury was the proximate cause ofthe left-sided carpaltunnel syndrome. Neitherthe court'swritten findings offact northe court's oralruling indicate 

### that it found by a preponderance ofcredible evidence that the Board's finding on 

### carpal tunnel syndrome causation was incorrect. On the contrary, the court's oral statements indicate that it found the evidence to be evenly balanced. It stated, 

### "Well, when Ireviewed this, Imean, Ibasically setaside the carpal tunnel, which 

### may ormaynotbe relatedto the originalinjury."6 The court's failure to apply the proper standard of review was error. 

### Goodman argues that the court did not decide that his carpal tunnel 

### syndrome was unrelated to the industrial injury. He asserts that the court's oral ruling makes itclearthatitinstead decidedthatGoodman is permanentlydisabled regardless ofwhetherthecarpaltunnel syndromeisrelated.7 Butthecourtentered
awrittenfinding explicitly statingthattheindustrial injuryis nottheproximatecause

5 CP at 1030. 6Report ofProceedings (June 6, 2014) at 15(emphasis added). 7Br. ofResp't (James D. Goodman) at 7. 8No. 73665-5-1 / 9 ofleft-sided carpal tunnel syndrome. To the extent that the court's oral ruling is inconsistent with the written findings, the written findings control. State v. Bryant, 78 Wn. App. 805, 812-13, 901 P.2d 1046(1995). In any event, Goodman'scontention that the court'soral ruling explains that it viewed the carpal tunnel syndrome as immaterial to its permanent disability determination is essentially an argument that the error was harmless. To the extent that a harmlessness analysis is appropriate, we conclude that this error is

not harmless. Whether Goodman's carpal tunnel syndrome is related to his industrial 

### injury, and whether his carpal tunnel syndrome is fixed and stable, are issues material to the determination of whether the claim can be closed. "For total 

### disability to be permanent, it is necessary that 'the physical condition arising from 

### the injury [be] fixed, lasting, and stable.'" Wilson v. Dep'tofLabor & Indus., 6Wn. App. 902, 904, 496 P.2d 551 (1972) (alteration in original) (quoting Hiatt v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 48 Wn.2d 843, 846, 297 P.2d 244 (1956)). Contrary to Goodman's assertion otherwise, all of the worker's conditions arising from the 

### injury must befixed and stable for total disability to bepermanent. Pend Oreille Mines & Metals Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries is 

### instructive. 64 Wn.2d 270, 391 P.2d 210 (1964). In that case, the employee's condition haddeteriorated to the pointwhere he was completely andpermanently 

### unemployable with no possibility ofrecovery. The employer sought to close the claim and classify theemployee as permanently totally disabled. The employer 

### argued that "once the workman's condition has passed the point where he willNo. 73665-5-1/10

never be employable again, his condition is properly defined as 'permanent total disability' and not 'temporary total disability.'" Pend Oreille, 64 Wn.2d at 271. The Supreme Court rejected this argument as inconsistentwiththe Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW: It is clear that if a permanently disabled workman is given a lump sum settlement or is placed on the pension roll, the moment he comes under this definition of permanent total disability, he conceivably could be denied medical care and attention when he is in the greatest need since the rightto medical aid under the actwould terminate at that time. Such a construction would make the act an absurdity by emasculating one of its primary objectives ofproviding sure and certain relief for workmen, injured in extrahazardous work. . . . Considering the act in its entirety, it is implicit that a workman who sustained an industrial injury is entitled to receive medical care and attention as may reasonably be required. The act should therefore be construed, inthe light of itsdeclared purpose and intent, 

### by providing that a workman may not be rated for permanent total disability until his condition becomesstaticorfixed, thereby affording him beneficial care and treatment from the time of his injury. Pend Oreille, 64 Wn.2d at 272. Under Pend Oreille, a claim must remain open until all of the worker's 

### conditions arising from theinjury arefixed and stable. This accords with decisions of the Board ofIndustrial InsuranceAppeals.8 The Board has held that a claim is 

### either open or closed but cannot be open with respect to some conditions and closed with respect toothers. In re Pike, No. 88 3366 (Wash. Bd. of Indus. Ins. Appeals Apr. 18, 1990). 

### Goodman argues that Pend Oreille is not applicable, because he, the 

### employee, is the one seeking the rating ofpermanent disability. He asserts that

8The Board publishes its significantdecisions and makes them available to the public. RCW 51 52 160 These decisions are nonbinding but are persuasiveauthority for this court O'Keefev. Dep't ofLabor &Indus.. 126Wn. App. 760, 766, 109 P.3d 484 (2005). 10No. 73665-5-1/11 "[b]ecause the choice is his, the [lAJ's] objective of sure and certain relief is met by allowing the claim to move forward despite continued treatment rather than forcing his claim to remain open."9 But Goodman cites no authority that the employee is entitled to make this choice. Accordingly, we reject this argument. Goodman contends that Airborne is precluded from arguing that Goodman's condition is not fixed and stable because it did not appeal the 

### Department's order. Butthe carpal tunnel syndrome condition was nota factor in the Department's closing order. Further, Goodman putthis at issueby arguing on 

### appeal thathis conditions were fixed and stable and his claim should be closed. For these reasons, Goodman's argument is not convincing. 

### In sum, the superior court erred when it applied the incorrect standard of review to the Board's decision. This error was not harmless. We conclude that 

### the proper remedy is to remand to the superior court. There, after applying the correct standard ofreview, the superior courtcan properly determine whetherthe 

### Board's finding of fact on carpal tunnel syndrome causation should stand. Thereafter, thecourt canproperly determine whether all ofGoodman's conditions that are related to the industrial injury werefixed and stablein February 2011 and whether Goodman's claim should be closed. Emplovability 

### Finally, Airborne argues that the superior court erred as a matter of law when itlimited the issues to whether Goodman was temporally totally disabled or 

### permanently totally disabled. It contends that the superior court should have

9Br. ofResp't (James D. Goodman) at 24. 11No. 73665-5-1/12 considered Goodman's employability. We reach this issue because it is likely to arise again on remand. We disagree with Airborne. An aggrieved party has the right to appeal a decision of the Board, but ifan aggrieved party fails to file its appeal to the superior court within 30 days, the decision of the Board becomes final. RCW 51.52.110; see also Hanguet, 75 Wn. App. at 665. Airborne was an aggrieved party on the issue ofGoodman's employability. Airborne argued to the Board that "the preponderance of the evidence shows [Goodman] is employable."10 It also argued that Goodman was nottemporarily 

### totally disabled from January 7, 2009 toFebruary 10, 2011, and that at thetime of the claim closure, Goodman was employable on a reasonably continuous basis. The Board found that "Goodman was not able to perform and obtain gainful 

### employment on a reasonably continuous basis from January 7, 2009 through February 10, 2011."11 And it determined that Goodman was temporarily totally disabled from January 7, 2009 through February 10, 2011. 

### Airborne argues thatit was not aggrieved because the Board only made 

### findings oftemporary disability. But "'[t]emporarytotal disability' is acondition that temporarily incapacitates a worker from performing any work at any gainful 

### employment." Hubbard v. Dep't of Labor &Indus., 140 Wn.2d 35, 43, 992 P.2d 1001 (2000). Temporarytotal disability differs from permanenttotal disability "only in duration ofdisability, and notin itscharacter." Hubbard, 140Wn.2d at 42. Airborne was aggrieved by the Board's determination on Goodman's

10 CP at 52. 11 CP at 46. 12No. 73665-5-1/13 

### employability notwithstanding the fact that the Board did not make a permanent 

### disability determination. Because Airborne did not appeal, it waived its right to challenge that portion ofthe decision. Attorney Fees 

### Goodman argues that heis entitled toattorney fees and costs under RCW 51.52.130(1). We disagree. 

### RCW 51.52.130(1) provides that in cases "where a party other than the 

### worker orbeneficiary is the appealing party and the worker's or beneficiary's right to relief is sustained, a reasonable fee for the services of the worker's or 

### beneficiary's attorney shall be fixed by the court." Goodman is notthe prevailing party in this appeal. We deny his request. We reverse and remand. 

# |v^\ cke \j )^J

WE CONCUR: 

# 4n7C,J

13