Opinion ID: 1396993
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: board's findings

Text: The majority has adequately covered the facts, but I would like to emphasize the Board's findings and decision. Pertinent findings of the Board substantiate its decision that Sisson was permanently and totally disabled: 4. On and prior to June 14, 1978, claimant suffered a condition of acute allergic bronchitis, mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and residual dyspnea on exertion. The allergic bronchitis was caused by the dust encountered in the course of his work at Blue Chelan, Inc. His industrial exposure aggravated and caused a permanent worsening of his pre-existing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. His condition is fixed. He should avoid heavy physical labor, dust and fumes. 5. Claimant is 64 years old and has an 8th grade education. He has worked at jobs requiring heavy labor including construction, logging, farming and orchard work. 6. On June 14, 1978, claimant's disability attributable to his industrial disease, combined with his age and prior training, totally and permanently prevented him from engaging in any full time occupation on a reasonably continuous basis. Clerk's Papers, at 19. As the employer is the appealing party in this matter, RCW 51.52.115 makes the finding and decision of the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals prima facie correct, and the burden is on the appealing party from a Board decision to show that such findings and decision are not correct and, if the trier of the fact finds the evidence equally balanced, then the findings of the Board must stand. Allison v. Department of Labor & Indus., 66 Wn.2d 263, 401 P.2d 982 (1965) states at page 268: In this context, prima facie means that there is a presumption on appeal that the findings and decision of the board, based upon the facts presented to it, are correct until the trier of fact finds from a fair preponderance of the evidence that such findings and decision of the board are incorrect. It must be a preponderance of the credible evidence. If the trier of fact finds the evidence to be equally balanced then the findings of the board must stand. Groff v. Department of Labor & Indus., 65 Wn.2d 35, 395 P.2d 633; Sumerlin v. Department of Labor & Indus., 8 Wn.2d 43, 111 P.2d 603; McLaren v. Department of Labor & Indus., 6 Wn.2d 164, 107 P.2d 230; Alfredson v. Department of Labor & Indus., 5 Wn.2d 648, 105 P.2d 37. La Vera v. Department of Labor & Indus., 45 Wn.2d 413, 275 P.2d 426 (1954) states at page 415: The sole fact-finding function in a court review of a board order is to examine the evidence and determine whether or not it clearly preponderates against the board's findings. If not, the appellant has failed to sustain his statutory burden of proof, and the prima facie correctness of the board's order has been confirmed. In view of the statutory guidelines set forth in RCW 51.52.115 and interpretative case law, let us analyze interrogatory 2. Interrogatory No. 2: On or about June 14, 1978 and as a proximate result of his January 28, 1976 industrial injury, was Mr. Sisson capable of obtaining and performing gainful employment on a reasonably continuous basis? ANSWER: No (Yes or No) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 2 is No, you will not answer Interrogatory No. 3. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 2 is Yes, you will answer Interrogatory No. 3. Clerk's Papers, at 35; instruction 17.