The Amateur Law Professor

WA Legal Roundup - Washington State Supreme Court

Tomlinson v. Puget Sound Freight Lines, Inc.

In a 8-0 opinion in which Justice Fairhurst did not participate, the Court held that Arthritis is a permanent partial disability, which can be subtracted from the total disability. In this case, Tomlin was found to be 75% disabled in his leg due to an industrial accident, which was reduced to 25% because he was found to have been 50% PPD prior to the accident due to his arthritis.

Tomlison had argued that arthritis cannot ever reach maximum medical improvement, and thus cannot be a PPD:

However, PPD also has a refined meaning to properly deal with medical conditions that, by their nature may stabilize or improve but later deteriorate again. A condition may reach permanency when it becomes stable and further treatment is unlikely to cure it. WAC 296-20-01002; cf. Allen v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 48 Wn.2d 317, 318, 293 P.2d 391 (1956) (allowing benefits for arthritis); Harper v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 46 Wn.2d 404, 281 P.2d 859 (1955) (Wash. Bd. of Indus. Ins. Appeals Sept. 11, 1962); In re Thompson, No. 13,473, at 5-6 (same). A condition may be deemed permanent when it has reached maximum medical improvement, even if it may be expected to deteriorate further. WAC 296-20-01002; accord Allen, 48 Wn.2d at 318.

WA Legal Roundup - Washington Supreme Court

In re Estate of Kissinger

Under the slayer statute, one who has committed an intentional unlawful murder can't take as an heir. Kissinger's son killed her, but was found not guilty by reason of insanity. In a 9-0 decision, the court held that a criminal defense of insanity doesn't preclude a civil finding that the murder was intentional and unlawful.

My initial reaction was to ask how one could be volitional if he wasn't sane at the time. In other words, wouldn't a finding by a jury that the Defendant was criminally insane necessarily be a finding that the act was not willful? However, the criminal insanity defense doesn't focus on the willfulness of the killings, but whether the Defendant could distinguish from right or wrong. Thus, he may have very well killed willfully even though he was criminally insane. Thus, Kissinger's son doesn't win summary judgment on the slayer issue, and must fight that civilly.

On a side note...Slayer rocks!

(The Slayer Issue?)

WA Legal Roundup - Washington Supreme Court

State v. Knippling

Knippling is up for his third strike for a home invasion. The question before the court was whether the first strike, a second degree robbery committed as a juvenile, was a strike at all. He was initially in superior court on first degree robbery charge, which was plead to second degree robbery. However, the superior court did not remand the case to juvenile court, who has jurisdiction over second degree. A conviction in juvenile court is not a strike, only those offenses which there is automatic superior court jurisdiction, or which juvenile court had declined. Here, though the second degree robbery was a serious offense, the juvenile court never had the chance to decline. Thus no strike for the first serious offense.