FILED MAY 29, 2025 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
MARIA MOLINA, ) ) No. 40406-4-III Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION INDUSTRIES, WASHINGTON STATE, ) ) Respondent. )
COONEY, J. — Maria Molina was injured while working as a caregiver and sought
workers’ compensation benefits through the Department of Labor and Industries
(Department). The Department concluded that the workplace injury to Ms. Molina’s
right knee did not aggravate a preexisting condition and closed her claim. Ms. Molina
appealed to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (Board); the Board affirmed the
Department. Ms. Molina appealed to the superior court; the superior court affirmed the
Board. No. 40406-4-III Molina v. Dep’t of Labor
Ms. Molina appeals. Because substantial evidence supports the superior court’s
findings, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On September 21, 2018, while employed as a caregiver with ALTSA Aging and
Long Term Support Administration, Ms. Molina assisted a client in disembarking a bus.
As Ms. Molina lowered the client from the bus to the ground, she felt a “popping” and
“cracking” in her lower back, hip, and both knees. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 118. Ms.
Molina felt as though she may faint from the pain.
Ms. Molina filed for workers’ compensation benefits through the Department.
Although the Department originally allowed Ms. Molina’s claim, it later closed her claim
because the Department found medical treatment “was no longer necessary,” and there
was “no permanent partial disability.” CP at 82. Specifically, the Department found Ms.
Molina’s her right knee osteoarthritis “wasn’t caused or aggravated by the industrial
injury or occupational disease for which the claim was filed.” CP at 87.
Ms. Molina appealed the Department’s order. At an evidentiary hearing before an
industrial appeals judge, testimony was presented by orthopedic and sports medicine
specialist, Judd Fitzgerald, M.D.; orthopedic surgeon, Aleksandar Curcin, M.D.; Ms.
Molina; Ulmer Gutierrez; and Modesta Camorlinga.1 Ms. Molina testified that she
1 The testimony of Dr. Fitzgerald and Dr. Curcin was presented via perpetuated
2 No. 40406-4-III Molina v. Dep’t of Labor
underwent surgery on her right knee “for the meniscus” 2 in 1981. CP at 117. Ms.
Molina further testified that she sought treatment for the right knee due to pain in 2012.
Dr. Fitzgerald testified that (1) he had two appointments with Ms. Molina related
to her right knee; (2) x-rays taken in 2018, after the industrial injury, revealed Ms.
Molina’s arthritis had worsened since 2012; (3) the x-rays showed tricompartmental
arthritis with near complete loss of space between the femur and tibia and two large bone
spurs; and (4) a 2018 MRI showed degenerative arthritis.
Dr. Fitzgerald opined that Ms. Molina had “near end-stage tricompartmental
osteoarthritis” in 2012. CP at 144. It was Dr. Fitzgerald’s opinion that Ms. Molina
would have been a candidate for total knee replacement in 2012, except for her young age
at that time. Dr. Fitzgerald further opined that the 2018 injury aggravated Ms. Molina’s
preexisting arthritis symptoms, testifying, “She clearly had arthritis before that that would
have been amenable to a knee replacement, but this aggravated those symptoms.” CP at
141. Dr. Fitzgerald discussed conservative treatments with Ms. Molina, but ultimately
opined that a total knee replacement was a reasonable course of treatment.
Dr. Curcin testified he conducted an independent medical examination (IME) of
Ms. Molina in early 2019. Dr. Curcin opined that the 2018 workplace injury “is not
deposition. 2 Medical records pertaining to this surgery were unavailable.
3 No. 40406-4-III Molina v. Dep’t of Labor
again something that would have caused or aggravated [Ms. Molina’s] knee condition”
and diagnosed Ms. Molina with “a right knee strain.” CP at 165, 186. It was Dr.
Curcin’s opinion that the 2018 MRI findings likely would have existed before the
industrial injury because it showed “very severe advanced arthritic disease that would
have developed over the years, not over the course of a couple of weeks.” CP at 193. Dr.
Curcin testified the MRI revealed severe degenerative changes in her right knee. Dr.
Curcin also noted that Ms. Molina’s knee condition would “progressively continue to
worsen” after her 2012 x-rays showed tricompartmental osteoarthritis. CP at 168.
At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the industrial appeals judge issued a
“Proposed Decision and Order” affirming the Department’s order. CP at 25-33. Ms.
Molina filed a petition for review of the Proposed Decision and Order to the Board. The
Board denied Ms. Molina’s petition and adopted the Proposed Decision and Order. In
part, the Board found:
3. Maria Molina’s condition diagnosed as right knee osteoarthritis was not caused or aggravated by the September 21, 2018 industrial injury. 4. As of February 20, 2020, Maria Molina’s conditions proximately caused by the September 21, 2018 industrial injury were fixed and stable, and did not need further proper and necessary medical treatment.
CP at 32. Based on these findings, the Board concluded, in part:
2. Maria Molina’s conditions proximately caused by the September 21, 2018, industrial injury were fixed and stable as of February 20, 2020, and she is not entitled to further medical treatment.
....
4 No. 40406-4-III Molina v. Dep’t of Labor
6. The Department order dated February 18, 2020, in which the Department denied responsibility for the condition diagnosed as right-knee osteoarthritis from the claim, is correct, and is affirmed.
CP at 32-33.
Ms. Molina appealed the Board’s decision to the superior court. The court
ultimately adopted the Board’s findings of fact 3 and 4 and affirmed the Board’s decision
to segregate and deny treatment for Ms. Molina’s right knee osteoarthritis.
Ms. Molina timely appeals.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Ms. Molina asserts the trial court’s findings of fact 3 and 4 are not
supported by substantial evidence.3 We disagree.
“Our review of the superior court decision is governed by RCW 51.52.140.”
Hendrickson v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 2 Wn. App. 2d 343, 351, 409 P.3d 1162 (2018).
“RCW 51.52.140 states that an ‘[a]ppeal shall lie from the judgment of the superior court
as in other civil cases.’” Id.
“[W]e review only ‘whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s factual
findings and then review, de novo, whether the trial court’s conclusions of law flow from
3 Ms. Molina also assigns error to finding of fact 5 that states, “Maria Molina was able to perform and obtain gainful employment on a reasonably continuous basis from November 15, 2019, through December 11, 2019.” CP at 32; Br. of Appellant at 6. However, Ms. Molina fails to provide any argument or analysis in support of her contention. “This court does not review issues inadequately briefed or mentioned only in passing.” Mackey v. Maurer, 153 Wn. App. 107, 114, 220 P.3d 1235 (2009).
5 No. 40406-4-III Molina v. Dep’t of Labor
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED MAY 29, 2025 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
MARIA MOLINA, ) ) No. 40406-4-III Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION INDUSTRIES, WASHINGTON STATE, ) ) Respondent. )
COONEY, J. — Maria Molina was injured while working as a caregiver and sought
workers’ compensation benefits through the Department of Labor and Industries
(Department). The Department concluded that the workplace injury to Ms. Molina’s
right knee did not aggravate a preexisting condition and closed her claim. Ms. Molina
appealed to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (Board); the Board affirmed the
Department. Ms. Molina appealed to the superior court; the superior court affirmed the
Board. No. 40406-4-III Molina v. Dep’t of Labor
Ms. Molina appeals. Because substantial evidence supports the superior court’s
findings, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On September 21, 2018, while employed as a caregiver with ALTSA Aging and
Long Term Support Administration, Ms. Molina assisted a client in disembarking a bus.
As Ms. Molina lowered the client from the bus to the ground, she felt a “popping” and
“cracking” in her lower back, hip, and both knees. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 118. Ms.
Molina felt as though she may faint from the pain.
Ms. Molina filed for workers’ compensation benefits through the Department.
Although the Department originally allowed Ms. Molina’s claim, it later closed her claim
because the Department found medical treatment “was no longer necessary,” and there
was “no permanent partial disability.” CP at 82. Specifically, the Department found Ms.
Molina’s her right knee osteoarthritis “wasn’t caused or aggravated by the industrial
injury or occupational disease for which the claim was filed.” CP at 87.
Ms. Molina appealed the Department’s order. At an evidentiary hearing before an
industrial appeals judge, testimony was presented by orthopedic and sports medicine
specialist, Judd Fitzgerald, M.D.; orthopedic surgeon, Aleksandar Curcin, M.D.; Ms.
Molina; Ulmer Gutierrez; and Modesta Camorlinga.1 Ms. Molina testified that she
1 The testimony of Dr. Fitzgerald and Dr. Curcin was presented via perpetuated
2 No. 40406-4-III Molina v. Dep’t of Labor
underwent surgery on her right knee “for the meniscus” 2 in 1981. CP at 117. Ms.
Molina further testified that she sought treatment for the right knee due to pain in 2012.
Dr. Fitzgerald testified that (1) he had two appointments with Ms. Molina related
to her right knee; (2) x-rays taken in 2018, after the industrial injury, revealed Ms.
Molina’s arthritis had worsened since 2012; (3) the x-rays showed tricompartmental
arthritis with near complete loss of space between the femur and tibia and two large bone
spurs; and (4) a 2018 MRI showed degenerative arthritis.
Dr. Fitzgerald opined that Ms. Molina had “near end-stage tricompartmental
osteoarthritis” in 2012. CP at 144. It was Dr. Fitzgerald’s opinion that Ms. Molina
would have been a candidate for total knee replacement in 2012, except for her young age
at that time. Dr. Fitzgerald further opined that the 2018 injury aggravated Ms. Molina’s
preexisting arthritis symptoms, testifying, “She clearly had arthritis before that that would
have been amenable to a knee replacement, but this aggravated those symptoms.” CP at
141. Dr. Fitzgerald discussed conservative treatments with Ms. Molina, but ultimately
opined that a total knee replacement was a reasonable course of treatment.
Dr. Curcin testified he conducted an independent medical examination (IME) of
Ms. Molina in early 2019. Dr. Curcin opined that the 2018 workplace injury “is not
deposition. 2 Medical records pertaining to this surgery were unavailable.
3 No. 40406-4-III Molina v. Dep’t of Labor
again something that would have caused or aggravated [Ms. Molina’s] knee condition”
and diagnosed Ms. Molina with “a right knee strain.” CP at 165, 186. It was Dr.
Curcin’s opinion that the 2018 MRI findings likely would have existed before the
industrial injury because it showed “very severe advanced arthritic disease that would
have developed over the years, not over the course of a couple of weeks.” CP at 193. Dr.
Curcin testified the MRI revealed severe degenerative changes in her right knee. Dr.
Curcin also noted that Ms. Molina’s knee condition would “progressively continue to
worsen” after her 2012 x-rays showed tricompartmental osteoarthritis. CP at 168.
At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the industrial appeals judge issued a
“Proposed Decision and Order” affirming the Department’s order. CP at 25-33. Ms.
Molina filed a petition for review of the Proposed Decision and Order to the Board. The
Board denied Ms. Molina’s petition and adopted the Proposed Decision and Order. In
part, the Board found:
3. Maria Molina’s condition diagnosed as right knee osteoarthritis was not caused or aggravated by the September 21, 2018 industrial injury. 4. As of February 20, 2020, Maria Molina’s conditions proximately caused by the September 21, 2018 industrial injury were fixed and stable, and did not need further proper and necessary medical treatment.
CP at 32. Based on these findings, the Board concluded, in part:
2. Maria Molina’s conditions proximately caused by the September 21, 2018, industrial injury were fixed and stable as of February 20, 2020, and she is not entitled to further medical treatment.
....
4 No. 40406-4-III Molina v. Dep’t of Labor
6. The Department order dated February 18, 2020, in which the Department denied responsibility for the condition diagnosed as right-knee osteoarthritis from the claim, is correct, and is affirmed.
CP at 32-33.
Ms. Molina appealed the Board’s decision to the superior court. The court
ultimately adopted the Board’s findings of fact 3 and 4 and affirmed the Board’s decision
to segregate and deny treatment for Ms. Molina’s right knee osteoarthritis.
Ms. Molina timely appeals.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Ms. Molina asserts the trial court’s findings of fact 3 and 4 are not
supported by substantial evidence.3 We disagree.
“Our review of the superior court decision is governed by RCW 51.52.140.”
Hendrickson v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 2 Wn. App. 2d 343, 351, 409 P.3d 1162 (2018).
“RCW 51.52.140 states that an ‘[a]ppeal shall lie from the judgment of the superior court
as in other civil cases.’” Id.
“[W]e review only ‘whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s factual
findings and then review, de novo, whether the trial court’s conclusions of law flow from
3 Ms. Molina also assigns error to finding of fact 5 that states, “Maria Molina was able to perform and obtain gainful employment on a reasonably continuous basis from November 15, 2019, through December 11, 2019.” CP at 32; Br. of Appellant at 6. However, Ms. Molina fails to provide any argument or analysis in support of her contention. “This court does not review issues inadequately briefed or mentioned only in passing.” Mackey v. Maurer, 153 Wn. App. 107, 114, 220 P.3d 1235 (2009).
5 No. 40406-4-III Molina v. Dep’t of Labor
the findings.’” Id. (quoting Rogers v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 151 Wn. App. 174, 180,
210 P.3d 355 (2009)). “‘Substantial evidence’ is evidence ‘sufficient to persuade a
rational, fair-minded person that the finding is true.’” Id. (citing Cantu v. Dep’t of Labor
& Indus., 168 Wn. App. 14, 21, 277 P.3d 685 (2012)).
“We do not substitute our ‘judgment for that of the trial court,’ ‘weigh the
evidence or the credibility of witnesses,’ or apply a new burden of persuasion.” Id. at
352 (quoting Davis v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 94 Wn.2d 119, 124, 615 P.2d 1279
(1980)). “We review the record in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed in
superior court.” Id.
FINDING OF FACT 3
Ms. Molina argues that the superior court erred in finding her workplace injury did
not aggravate her preexisting osteoarthritis in her right knee. Specifically, Ms. Molina
argues her workplace injury “lit up” the preexisting osteoarthritis in her knee. CP at 165.
She further alleges Dr. Curcin, whose testimony the court partially relied on, did not
understand the mechanism of Ms. Molina’s injury.
The Department responds that the lighting up theory does not apply to the facts of
this case, and that Ms. Molina is essentially requesting this court improperly reweigh
evidence on appeal. We agree with the Department.
On appeal from the Department’s decision to segregate Ms. Molina’s osteoarthritis
and deny treatment, the Board affirmed, finding that Ms. Molina’s “right knee
6 No. 40406-4-III Molina v. Dep’t of Labor
osteoarthritis was not caused or aggravated by the [workplace] injury.” CP at 32. The
superior court adopted this finding and affirmed the Board’s decision to segregate and
deny treatment.
As an initial matter, Ms. Molina’s argument related to finding of fact 3 primarily
consists of her disagreement with Dr. Curcin’s opinion. She inherently requests this
court adopt Dr. Fitzgerald’s opinion over Dr. Curcin’s. This court reviews the superior
court’s findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence, but
does not reweigh the evidence. Davis, 94 Wn.2d at 124. Here, the superior court’s
finding that Ms. Molina’s right knee osteoarthritis was not aggravated by her 2018
workplace injury is supported by substantial evidence, namely, the testimony of Dr.
Curcin.
Turning to the merits, an injured worker “must establish a causal connection
between the work injury and the subsequent physical condition” to receive benefits for a
preexisting condition. Zavala v. Twin City Foods, 185 Wn. App. 838, 861, 343 P.3d 761
(2015). Causation must be proved through medical testimony establishing “that it is
‘more probable than not that the industrial injury caused the subsequent disability.’”
Loushin v. ITT Rayonier, 84 Wn. App. 113, 122, 924 P.2d 953 (1996) (quoting Zipp v.
Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 36 Wn. App 598, 601, 676 P.2d 538 (1984)). The claimed
subsequent disability cannot be the result of the “ordinary progression of a disease from
7 No. 40406-4-III Molina v. Dep’t of Labor
which he suffered independently of the injury.” Nagel v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 189
Wash. 631, 637, 66 P.2d 318 (1937).
The superior court’s finding that Ms. Molina’s workplace injury did not aggravate
her osteoarthritis is supported by substantial evidence. The court relied on medical
testimony from Dr. Fitzgerald and Dr. Curcin. Dr. Fitzgerald testified that Ms. Molina
had “end-stage tricompartmental osteoarthrosis” in her right knee in 2012. CP at 168.
He further testified that Ms. Molina would have qualified for a total knee replacement in
2012 were it not for her young age. However, Dr. Fitzgerald opined that the workplace
injury aggravated Ms. Molina’s preexisting arthritis symptoms because she complained
of increased pain after the injury.
Dr. Curcin opined that Ms. Molina’s condition progressively worsened since 2012.
He testified that the 2018 MRI showed “severe advanced arthritic disease that would
have developed over the years, not … a couple of weeks.” CP at 193. According to Dr.
Curcin, Ms. Molina’s worsening osteoarthritis was not caused or aggravated by her 2018
workplace injury.
The court seemingly accepted Dr. Curcin’s testimony and found Ms. Molina’s
preexisting condition was not aggravated by her workplace injury. Dr. Curcin’s
testimony is sufficient to persuade a rational, fair-minded person that the court’s finding
that the workplace injury did not aggravate Ms. Molina’s osteoarthritis is true.
Accordingly, finding of fact 3 is supported by substantial evidence. Because the injury
8 No. 40406-4-III Molina v. Dep’t of Labor
was not a proximate cause of Ms. Molina’s osteoarthritis, the court’s affirmation of the
Board’s segregation order in conclusion of law 6 is supported by its findings.
FINDING OF FACT 4
Ms. Molina argues that substantial evidence does not support finding of fact 4.
Namely, Ms. Molina argues that, contrary to the court’s finding, the condition
proximately caused by her industrial injury needed further treatment when the
Department closed her claim. We disagree.
An injured worker is entitled to medical treatment while they recover from an
industrial injury. RCW 51.36.010(2)(a). An injured worker may receive “proper and
necessary medical care required for the diagnosis and curative treatment of the accepted
condition.” WAC 296-20-010(9) (emphasis added). However, once an injured worker
obtains “maximum medical improvement,” the Department is no longer obligated to pay
for medical services. WAC 296-20-01002 (defining “[p]roper and necessary” as
“[m]aximum medical improvement” or “fixed and stable”).
Here, substantial evidence supports the superior court’s finding of fact 4. Dr.
Curcin testified that it was incomprehensible that Ms. Molina’s right knee was
asymptomatic before the industrial injury based on imaging from 2012. Referencing the
2012 imaging, Dr. Fitzgerald conceded that osteoarthritis in Ms. Molina’s right knee
rendered her eligible for a total knee replacement in 2012, but for her youthful age.
Consequently, the Department properly segregated Ms. Molina’s right knee osteoarthritis.
9 No. 40406-4-III Molina v. Dep’t of Labor
The testimonies of Dr. Curin and Dr. Fitzgerald provide sufficient evidence to
persuade a rational, fair-minded person that Ms. Molina’s right knee osteoarthritis is not
an accepted condition under her claim. Finding of fact 4 is supported by substantial
evidence. Consequently, the court’s conclusions that Ms. Molina’s industrial injury was
fixed and stable as of February 20, 2020, and she is not entitled to further medical
treatment, is supported by the court’s findings of fact.
ATTORNEY FEES
Ms. Molina requests attorney fees on appeal pursuant to RCW 51.52.130. RCW
51.52.130(1) provides:
If, on appeal to the superior or appellate court from the decision and order of the board, said decision and order is reversed or modified and additional relief is granted to a worker . . . a reasonable fee for the services of the worker’s . . . attorney shall be fixed by the court.
RCW 51.52.130 “encompasses fees in both the superior and appellate courts when both
courts review the matter.” Hi-Way Fuel Co. v. Estate of Allyn, 128 Wn. App. 351, 363-
64, 115 P.3d 1031 (2005).
Because we affirm the superior court, Ms. Molina is not a prevailing party and is
not entitled to an award of attorney fees.
Affirmed.
10 No. 40406-4-III Molina v. Dep’t of Labor
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
Cooney, J.
WE CONCUR:
Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.
Staab, J.