In a recent ruling, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of loss of earning power (LEP) benefits to Bryan Ostbye, a mechanic who suffered a wrist injury while working for the Department of Transportation. The court's decision, filed on November 9, 2026, impacts Ostbye's financial recovery after his work-related injury and clarifies the requirements for obtaining LEP benefits under the state's industrial insurance laws.

Ostbye's case began after he injured his left wrist in 2019 while performing his duties as a heavy equipment mechanic. Initially, the Department of Labor and Industries (the Department) accepted his workers' compensation claim for a wrist sprain and degenerative joint disease. However, the Department later denied responsibility for a more serious triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) tear and subsequently closed his claim, awarding him a permanent partial disability rating of 4 percent for his left arm.

Seeking additional compensation, Ostbye appealed the Department's decisions and sought back pay for LEP benefits during his recovery. An industrial appeals judge initially ruled in his favor, granting him back LEP benefits from January 18, 2023, to August 14, 2023. However, the Department appealed this decision to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (BIIA), which reversed the ruling, leading Ostbye to take his case to the superior court. The court granted the Department's motion for partial summary judgment, affirming the denial of LEP benefits, prompting Ostbye to appeal this decision to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals ruled that Ostbye did not meet the necessary legal standards to qualify for LEP benefits. In the opinion authored by Judge DÍAZ, the court stated, "Ostbye failed to provide expert testimony establishing post-injury earning capacity and that any reduction in earning capacity is causally related to residuals of the industrial injury." The ruling emphasized the importance of expert testimony in proving a causal link between the work injury and any loss of earning power.

In its analysis, the court referenced the Industrial Insurance Act (IIA), which outlines the benefits available to injured workers. Under the IIA, workers can claim LEP benefits if they can demonstrate that their post-injury earning capacity has decreased due to their work-related injury. The court highlighted the requirements established in a previous case, In re Heitt, which mandates that claimants provide expert testimony on their pre-injury and post-injury earning capacities, as well as a causal relationship between their injury and any reduction in earnings.

The court found that Ostbye's evidence did not satisfy these requirements. While he testified that his post-injury job paid less than his previous position, he failed to provide sufficient expert testimony to establish that his earning capacity was directly affected by his work-related injury. The court noted that the medical opinions presented did not adequately connect Ostbye's restrictions to his lower earnings, stating, "The evidence must support a determination that there has been a loss of earning capacity exceeding 5 percent or more, not just a difference in rates pre- and post-injury."

The ruling has significant implications for Ostbye and others in similar situations. It underscores the necessity for injured workers to provide clear and compelling expert testimony to substantiate claims for LEP benefits. The court's decision reinforces the legal standards that must be met to prove entitlement to these benefits, which are designed to compensate workers for diminished earning capacity following a work-related injury.

As a result of this ruling, Ostbye will not receive the LEP benefits he sought, and the decision may serve as a precedent for future cases involving similar claims for benefits under Washington's industrial insurance laws. The court's emphasis on the need for expert testimony may lead to more rigorous standards for injured workers seeking compensation for lost earning power.

Looking ahead, Ostbye may consider further legal options, including the possibility of appealing to a higher court. However, the court filing did not indicate whether there are any related cases pending that could impact this situation. The outcome of this case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in workers' compensation claims and the importance of meeting legal standards to secure benefits.