 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Etten v. Columbia Lighting Inc.6/11/1998
Source of Appeal: Appeal from Superior Court of Spokane County Docket No: 94-2-02324-6 Judgment or order under review Date filed: 03/27/97 judge signing: Hon. Tari S. Eitzen
Panel Eight
The primary issue we decide today is when the statute of limitations (RCW 4.16.080(2)) accrued on Ellen M. Van Etten's discrimination and wrongful employment termination claim against Columbia Lighting, Inc. We also decide secondary issues raised by Columbia in the appeal relating to the existence of handicap and nonexistence of accommodation, preemption, admissibility of worker 's compensation evidence, damages, deductions for worker 's compensation payments, plaintiff's use of defense experts, and attorney fees. We hold (1) the discrimination was continuing in nature until discharge and alternatively, (2) waiver applies, resolving the primary issue in favor of Ms. Van Etten. Because we also find no merit in Columbia's secondary issues, we affirm.
FACTS
In April 1987, Columbia hired Ms. Van Etten to work in its electric light manufacturing plant. Ms. Van Etten's job title was "assembler." She worked in all of the eight assembly lines the company used to put together its product. She also worked relief, including the position of "material handler." In the latter position, the employee gathers the component parts for assembly of the lighting fixture and delivers them to the assemblers.
Some of the assembler job stations required the employee to work with a rivet gun. In October 1989, Ms. Van Etten was working as a riveter when she experienced pain in her arms. She asked her supervisor to switch her to a different job. The supervisor refused her request and sent her to a medical doctor. Dr. George Richardson recommended she not use the rivet gun. Instead, Ms. Van Etten asserts Columbia put her to work riveting eight hours a day, every workday. She continued on the job for another four months, until February 1990, when Dr. Richardson recommended Columbia place her on medical leave.
Dr. Richardson later testified that a bone scan he ordered for Ms. Van Etten showed inflammation in her wrists and lower arms. He believed the inflammation was due to her use of power tools on the job for extended time periods. The treatment was to stop the aggravating cause. Under the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union that represents Columbia employees, an injured worker may remain on medical leave for up to one year without losing his or her seniority.
Dr. Richardson eventually diagnosed Ms. Van Etten as suffering from degenerative arthritis. Over the following year, Dr. Richardson examined Ms. Van Etten every month to evaluate her ability to return to work. Columbia required such evaluations of all employees on medical leave. In monthly "return to work" documents he submitted to Columbia, Dr. Richardson described Ms. Van Etten's condition as static, and restricted her to jobs that required only light, not forceful, repetitive activity.
Ms. Van Etten also filed an industrial insurance claim. Dr. Stephen Sears saw her on behalf of Columbia in June 1990 to conduct an independent medical evaluation of her disability. His clinical findings confirmed the symptoms she reported. He testified Ms. Van Etten was capable of returning to work at that time, although her symptoms might recur if she had to use the rivet gun to any significant degree. That same month, Ms. Van Etten contacted Frank Lydon, Columbia's industrial relations manager, and told him she believed she was physically able to return to work. He told her that her doctor would have to approve her return to work without restriction before Columbia would permit her to resume
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|