A Washington state appellate court panel here has reversed a Spokane County Superior Court decision and denied a woman's attempt to reopen a workers' compensation claim due to what she alleged was a worsening of her disability.

Under Washington state law, claimants whose original workers' comp claims have been closed may seek to reopen those claims to obtain additional benefits by establishing that their disabilities have become aggravated. To prevail, though, they must show objective medical evidence that their conditions have worsened.

In this case, the Spokane-based Court of Appeals Division III panel ruled 3-0 that the expert opinion supporting claimant Terri L. Eastwood's application wasn't based on objective findings. It held that doctors testifying on Eastwood's behalf, while convinced that her condition indeed had worsened, failed to provide specific comparative medical assessments validating those beliefs.

The panel tossed out a June 2008 ruling by Superior Court Judge Robert D. Austin in favor of Eastwood and reinstated a state Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals' decision denying a "compensable aggravation." Also, it reversed an award of attorney's fees to Eastwood's attorney, Pat Stiley.

"It's a very important workers' comp case. It's very significant in clarifying the law," asserts attorney Jerry Keene, of the Reinisch Mackenzie PC law firm, in Portland, who represented appellant Rite Aid Corp. "Cases like this that provide concrete guidance help reduce litigation and, ultimately, the cost of the workers' compensation system because they let parties know clearly where they stand. They don't have to go to court to roll the dice."

Eastwood originally had filed an application for workers' comp benefits with the state Department of Labor and Industries in 1999, alleging that she suffered from right arm and shoulder ailments stemming from her employment with Thrifty Payless Inc., now Rite Aid.

The department issued an order allowing the claim as an occupational disease, and Eastwood had surgeries on her shoulder in 2000 and 2002.

As of the most recent closure of her case in March 2004, she was rated as having a 22 percent permanent impairment of her shoulder, the appellate court decision notes.

Eastwood applied in August 2005 to have her claim reopened, alleging an aggravation of her shoulder condition, and appealed the matter to Superior Court after L&I and the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals both rejected her application.

The appellate panel noted there was conflicting deposition testimony by doctors over whether Eastwood's condition had worsened over the two-year period that became the point of focus in the case. Agreeing with the industrial insurance appeals board, though, the decision authored by Judge Teresa C. Kulik said there was "no medical documentation or testimony in the record to support the assumption that Ms. Eastwood experienced pain with movement or positions in 2006 that were in any way new or more pronounced" than what she was experiencing two years earlier.