In a workers' compensation appeal, must the lawyer pursue new issues raised by an agreed medical examination that the appeal did not directly cover?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked about the duty to a client in pursuing a worker's compensation claim before the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals. The specific issue was whether, after the client submitted to an "agreed examination" by a physician that raised new matters not directly addressed by the appeal, the lawyer had an ethical duty to advocate for the injured worker and pursue any matters raised by the physician.

The committee was of the opinion that whether the worker's attorney was entitled to pursue any issues raised by the examining physician is primarily a question of law involving interpretation of the parties' agreement. It added that, provided the worker's attorney acts in good faith in an effort to exercise the client's legal rights, the lawyer is unlikely to run afoul of any ethical rule.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the committee say the lawyer must pursue the new issues raised by the agreed examination?

A: The committee said that question is primarily one of law, turning on interpretation of the parties' agreement, rather than an ethics question it could resolve.

Q: How can the lawyer stay within the ethics rules?

A: The committee said that a lawyer who acts in good faith to exercise the client's legal rights is unlikely to run afoul of any ethical rule.

Background and rules framework

The committee treated the dispute as one about the scope of the engagement and the underlying agreement, a legal question, rather than as a matter governed by a specific Rule of Professional Conduct. It identified no rule as controlling and framed good-faith advocacy of the client's legal rights as the ethical touchstone.

Citations and references

The committee identified no Rule of Professional Conduct as controlling and cited none.

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1436: Scope; Assisting Pro Se Parties With Forms
• WA Ethics Op. 1430: Guardian ad Litem and the RPC

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=560

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Advisory Opinion: 1480
Year Issued: 1992
RPC(s):
Subject: Scope of representation; workers compensation claim

The Committee reviewed your inquiry regarding your duty to a client in pursuing a worker's compensation claim before the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals. The specific issue is whether, after your client had submitted to an "agreed examination" by a physician which raises new matters not directly addressed by the appeal, you have an ethical duty to advocate for the injured worker and pursue any matters raised by the physician. The Committee was of the opinion that whether or not the worker's attorney was entitled to pursue any issues raised by the examining physician is primarily a question of law involving interpretation of the agreement of the parties. Provided that the worker's attorney acts in good faith in an effort to exercise his or her client's legal rights, the lawyer is unlikely to run afoul of any ethical rule.