Opinion ID: 1421477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kuaimoku

Text: Appellant Patrick Kuaimoku commenced employment as a Bellevue fire fighter in January 1969. Following a job-related back injury, Kuaimoku filed for disability retirement. The application was denied by the Bellevue Disability Board and the denial was affirmed by the State LEOFF Board. [1] Kuaimoku appealed. Subsequently, in a March de novo administrative hearing, the hearing examiner concluded Kuaimoku was disabled from working as a fire fighter and granted him a disability allowance. No appeal was taken from this order. Subsequently, Kuaimoku was reexamined and, in 1979, the Bellevue Disability Board canceled his disability allowance. Kuiamoku appealed and a hearing de novo was conducted pursuant to RCW 41.26.220. At the hearing, two doctors testified that there had been no substantial change in Kuaimoku's medical condition. A third doctor would not express an opinion on whether his condition had changed because he had not examined him at the time of the initial disability hearing. The two doctors who testified on behalf of the City of Bellevue concluded that Kuaimoku was not disabled. They based their opinion on the lack of objective signs of back injury. Kuaimoku's doctor, who had first examined Kuaimoku in 1975 in conjunction with the initial grant of disability, stated that Kuaimoku was disabled from working as a fire fighter. In his opinion Kuaimoku's subjective symptoms had improved somewhat because he had learned to take better care of his back. The hearing examiner concluded Kuaimoku had failed to show he was still disabled. The trial court reversed and remanded, ruling that the burden of proof had been improperly placed on Kuaimoku. On remand before a different hearing examiner, the parties stipulated to use of the record from the prior hearing. The new examiner found, inter alia, that [a]t the time of reexamination, Kuaimoku's back injury, though slightly improved, was essentially the same as at the time Kuaimoku was initially granted a retirement allowance. He found that Kuaimoku was still disabled and proposed an order reversing the cancellation of disability. The State LEOFF Board did not adopt this proposed order, however, and affirmed the cancellation. The State Board's finding of fact 9 provided: At the time of reexamination Kuaimoku's back injury had improved somewhat from the time he initially was granted a disability allowance. Kuaimoku again appealed. The trial judge affirmed, ruling that the State Board's order was neither arbitrary and capricious nor clearly erroneous. The judge concluded that no change in medical condition or other circumstances need be shown to justify cancellation of a disability allowance. The judge further stated that even if such a change was required, the record supported the Board's finding of improvement in condition.