Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
28 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ruse v. Department of Labor & Industriesgreen2 sentences2024The BIIA decision is considered prima facie correct and the “party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence.” Ruse v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 138 Wn.2d 1, 5 , 977 P.2d 570 (1999); see also RCW 51.52.115. 2021App. 672, 677 , 279 P.3d 515 (2012)), review denied, 195 Wn.2d 1025 (2020). 5 No. 81325-1-I/6 a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence.”9 We review the decision of the superior court rather than the decision of the Board.10 The superior court's decision in an industrial insurance appeal is subject to the ordinary standard of review for civil cases.11 Here, the superior court affirmed the Board’s dismissal of Cook-Crist’s appeal under CR 41(b)(3), which provides that a trial court sitting without a jury may grant a motion to dismiss at the clo | 2 | 19 |
McClelland v. ITT Rayonier, Inc.green2 sentences2008"All doubts about the meaning of the [IIA] must be resolved in favor of workers." Heidy, 147 Wash.2d at 86 , 51 P.3d 793 . ¶ 14 Under the IIA, the BIIA's "decision is prima facie correct . . . and a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence." Ruse v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 138 Wash.2d 1, 5 , 977 P.2d 570 (1999); see also RCW 51.52.115. [7] "On review, the superior court may substitute its own findings and decision for the [BIIA's] only if it finds `from a fair preponderance of credible evidence,' that the [BIIA's] findings and decision are inc 2008“All doubts about the meaning of the [IIA] must be resolved in favor of workers.” Heidy, 147 Wn.2d at 86 . ¶14 Under the IIA, the BIIA’s “decision is prima facie correct . . . and a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence.” Ruse v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 138 Wn.2d 1, 5 , 977 P.2d 570 (1999); see also RCW 51.52.115. 7 “On review, the superior court may substitute its own findings and decision for the [BIIA’s] only if it finds ‘from a fair preponderance of credible evidence,’ that the [BIIA’s] findings and decision are incorrect.” Ruse, 138 Wn | 2 | 6 |
Ruse v. Department of Labor & Industriesgreen2 sentences2024The BIIA decision is considered prima facie correct and the “party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence.” Ruse v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 138 Wn.2d 1, 5 , 977 P.2d 570 (1999); see also RCW 51.52.115. 2021App. 672, 677 , 279 P.3d 515 (2012)), review denied, 195 Wn.2d 1025 (2020). 5 No. 81325-1-I/6 a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence.”9 We review the decision of the superior court rather than the decision of the Board.10 The superior court's decision in an industrial insurance appeal is subject to the ordinary standard of review for civil cases.11 Here, the superior court affirmed the Board’s dismissal of Cook-Crist’s appeal under CR 41(b)(3), which provides that a trial court sitting without a jury may grant a motion to dismiss at the clo | 1 | 19 |
Young v. Department of Labor & Industriesgreen2 sentences2013The Board's decision is prima facie correct and a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence.2 The superior court reviews the Board's decision de novo.3 We review the Board's record "'to see whether substantial evidence supports the findings made after the superior court's de novo review, and whether the court's conclusions of law flow from the findings.'"4 Evidence is substantial if "sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the matter."5 The Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW, should be construed liberally in fav 2008"All doubts about the meaning of the [IIA] must be resolved in favor of workers." Heidy, 147 Wash.2d at 86 , 51 P.3d 793 . ¶ 14 Under the IIA, the BIIA's "decision is prima facie correct . . . and a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence." Ruse v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 138 Wash.2d 1, 5 , 977 P.2d 570 (1999); see also RCW 51.52.115. [7] "On review, the superior court may substitute its own findings and decision for the [BIIA's] only if it finds `from a fair preponderance of credible evidence,' that the [BIIA's] findings and decision are inc | 1 | 3 |
Young v. Dept. of Labor and Industriesgreen2 sentences2013App. 123, 128 , 913 P.2d 402 (1996)). 5 R & G Probst v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.. 121 Wn. 2008"All doubts about the meaning of the [IIA] must be resolved in favor of workers." Heidy, 147 Wash.2d at 86 , 51 P.3d 793 . ¶ 14 Under the IIA, the BIIA's "decision is prima facie correct . . . and a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence." Ruse v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 138 Wash.2d 1, 5 , 977 P.2d 570 (1999); see also RCW 51.52.115. [7] "On review, the superior court may substitute its own findings and decision for the [BIIA's] only if it finds `from a fair preponderance of credible evidence,' that the [BIIA's] findings and decision are inc | 1 | 2 |
Stelter v. Department of Labor & Industriesgreen1 sentence2008"All doubts about the meaning of the [IIA] must be resolved in favor of workers." Heidy, 147 Wash.2d at 86 , 51 P.3d 793 . ¶ 14 Under the IIA, the BIIA's "decision is prima facie correct . . . and a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence." Ruse v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 138 Wash.2d 1, 5 , 977 P.2d 570 (1999); see also RCW 51.52.115. [7] "On review, the superior court may substitute its own findings and decision for the [BIIA's] only if it finds `from a fair preponderance of credible evidence,' that the [BIIA's] findings and decision are inc | 1 | 1 |
Stelter v. Department of Labor and Industriesgreen1 sentence2008"All doubts about the meaning of the [IIA] must be resolved in favor of workers." Heidy, 147 Wash.2d at 86 , 51 P.3d 793 . ¶ 14 Under the IIA, the BIIA's "decision is prima facie correct . . . and a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence." Ruse v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 138 Wash.2d 1, 5 , 977 P.2d 570 (1999); see also RCW 51.52.115. [7] "On review, the superior court may substitute its own findings and decision for the [BIIA's] only if it finds `from a fair preponderance of credible evidence,' that the [BIIA's] findings and decision are inc | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ravsten v. Department of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2002Ravsten v. Department of Labor & Indus., 108 Wn.2d 143, 146 , 736 P.2d 265 (1987). 2002Ravsten v. Department of Labor & Indus., 108 Wn.2d 143, 146 , 736 P.2d 265 (1987). | 6 | 1999–2002 |
Watson v. Department of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2021Watson, 133 Wn. 2008"All doubts about the meaning of the [IIA] must be resolved in favor of workers." Heidy, 147 Wash.2d at 86 , 51 P.3d 793 . ¶ 14 Under the IIA, the BIIA's "decision is prima facie correct . . . and a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence." Ruse v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 138 Wash.2d 1, 5 , 977 P.2d 570 (1999); see also RCW 51.52.115. [7] "On review, the superior court may substitute its own findings and decision for the [BIIA's] only if it finds `from a fair preponderance of credible evidence,' that the [BIIA's] findings and decision are inc | 2 | 2008–2021 |
Rogers v. Department of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2021App. 851, 856 , 347 P.3d 503 (2015). 11 RCW 51.52.140; Rogers, 151 Wn. 2016Rogers v. Dep't of Labor &Indus., 151 Wn. | 2 | 2016–2021 |
Boeing Co. v. Heidy
green
2 sentences2008"All doubts about the meaning of the [IIA] must be resolved in favor of workers." Heidy, 147 Wash.2d at 86 , 51 P.3d 793 . ¶ 14 Under the IIA, the BIIA's "decision is prima facie correct . . . and a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence." Ruse v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 138 Wash.2d 1, 5 , 977 P.2d 570 (1999); see also RCW 51.52.115. [7] "On review, the superior court may substitute its own findings and decision for the [BIIA's] only if it finds `from a fair preponderance of credible evidence,' that the [BIIA's] findings and decision are inc 2008“All doubts about the meaning of the [IIA] must be resolved in favor of workers.” Heidy, 147 Wn.2d at 86 . ¶14 Under the IIA, the BIIA’s “decision is prima facie correct . . . and a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence.” Ruse v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 138 Wn.2d 1, 5 , 977 P.2d 570 (1999); see also RCW 51.52.115. 7 “On review, the superior court may substitute its own findings and decision for the [BIIA’s] only if it finds ‘from a fair preponderance of credible evidence,’ that the [BIIA’s] findings and decision are incorrect.” Ruse, 138 Wn | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Leuluaialii v. Department of Labor & Industries
green
1 sentence2021App. 672, 677 , 279 P.3d 515 (2012)), review denied, 195 Wn.2d 1025 (2020). 5 No. 81325-1-I/6 a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence.”9 We review the decision of the superior court rather than the decision of the Board.10 The superior court's decision in an industrial insurance appeal is subject to the ordinary standard of review for civil cases.11 Here, the superior court affirmed the Board’s dismissal of Cook-Crist’s appeal under CR 41(b)(3), which provides that a trial court sitting without a jury may grant a motion to dismiss at the clo | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Birgen v. Department of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2021App. 672, 677 , 279 P.3d 515 (2012)), review denied, 195 Wn.2d 1025 (2020). 5 No. 81325-1-I/6 a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence.”9 We review the decision of the superior court rather than the decision of the Board.10 The superior court's decision in an industrial insurance appeal is subject to the ordinary standard of review for civil cases.11 Here, the superior court affirmed the Board’s dismissal of Cook-Crist’s appeal under CR 41(b)(3), which provides that a trial court sitting without a jury may grant a motion to dismiss at the clo 2021App. 851, 856 , 347 P.3d 503 (2015). 11 RCW 51.52.140; Rogers, 151 Wn. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
R&G Probst v. Department of Labor & Industries
green
1 sentence2013App. 123, 128 , 913 P.2d 402 (1996)). 5 R & G Probst v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.. 121 Wn. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Brighton v. STATE DEPT. OF TRANSP.
neutral
1 sentence2012Id. ¶11 The Board’s decision is prima facie correct under RCW 51.52.115, and a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Watson v. Department of Labor and Industries
green
1 sentence2008"All doubts about the meaning of the [IIA] must be resolved in favor of workers." Heidy, 147 Wash.2d at 86 , 51 P.3d 793 . ¶ 14 Under the IIA, the BIIA's "decision is prima facie correct . . . and a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence." Ruse v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 138 Wash.2d 1, 5 , 977 P.2d 570 (1999); see also RCW 51.52.115. [7] "On review, the superior court may substitute its own findings and decision for the [BIIA's] only if it finds `from a fair preponderance of credible evidence,' that the [BIIA's] findings and decision are inc | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Boeing Co. v. Heidy
green
1 sentence2008"All doubts about the meaning of the [IIA] must be resolved in favor of workers." Heidy, 147 Wash.2d at 86 , 51 P.3d 793 . ¶ 14 Under the IIA, the BIIA's "decision is prima facie correct . . . and a party attacking the decision must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence." Ruse v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 138 Wash.2d 1, 5 , 977 P.2d 570 (1999); see also RCW 51.52.115. [7] "On review, the superior court may substitute its own findings and decision for the [BIIA's] only if it finds `from a fair preponderance of credible evidence,' that the [BIIA's] findings and decision are inc | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.