Wash. Rev. Code » Title 34 · Chapter 34.05
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.425 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, in the discretion of the agency head, the presiding officer in an administrative hearing shall be:
(a) The agency head or one or more members of the agency head;
(b) If the agency has statutory authority to do so, a person other than the agency head or an administrative law judge designated by the agency head to make the final decision and enter the final order;
(c) One or more administrative law judges assigned by the office of administrative hearings in accordance with chapter 34.12 RCW; or
(d) A person or persons designated by the secretary of health pursuant to RCW 43.70.740.
(2) An agency expressly exempted under RCW 34.12.020(4) or other statute from the provisions of chapter 34.12 RCW or an institution of higher education shall designate a presiding officer as provided by rules adopted by the agency.
(3) Any individual serving or designated to serve alone or with others as presiding officer is subject to disqualification for bias, prejudice, interest, or any other cause provided in this chapter or for which a judge is disqualified.
(4) Any party may petition for the disqualification of an individual promptly after receipt of notice indicating that the individual will preside or, if later, promptly upon discovering facts establishing grounds for disqualification.
(5) The individual whose disqualification is requested shall determine whether to grant the petition, stating facts and reasons for the determination.
(6) When the presiding officer is an administrative law judge, the provisions of this section regarding disqualification for cause are in addition to the motion of prejudice available under RCW 34.12.050.
(7) If a substitute is required for an individual who becomes unavailable as a result of disqualification or any other reason, the substitute must be appointed by the appropriate appointing authority.
(8) Any action taken by a duly appointed substitute for an unavailable individual is as effective as if taken by the unavailable individual.
[ 2013 c 109 s 4; 1989 c 175 s 14; 1988 c 288 s 406.]

Notes:

Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Jackstadt v. Washington State Patrol, 976 P.2d 190 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jackstadt v. Washington State Patrol, 976 P.2d 190 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 18× “464(3) provides that RCW 34.05.425 and 34.05.455 apply to a reviewing officer "to the same extent that it is applicable to presiding officers.”
Nationscapital Mortg. Corp. v. Dep't of Fin. Institutions, 133 Wash. App. 723 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “” RCW 34.05.425(3), .464(3). A person who has served as an investigator, prosecutor, or advocate may not serve as a presiding officer in the same proceeding.”
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec, 197 P.3d 1153 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 2× “See RCW 34.05.425(3); AR at 2518-19 (Lathrop's petition for review of EFSEC order denying motion to disqualify).”
Sherman v. State, 905 P.2d 355 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 2× “In support of its ruling, the trial court relied upon the Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC), RCW 34.05.425, and the appearance of fairness doctrine.”
Sherman v. State, 905 P.2d 355 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 2× “Gilliland requesting that he serve as the University's representative in this litigation.”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 165 Wash. 2d 275 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 2× “See RCW 34.05.425(3); AR at 2518-19 (Lathrop’s petition for review of EFSEC order denying motion to disqualify).”
Raven v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 306 P.3d 920 (Wash. 2013). “aw; (e) The order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court, which includes the agency record for judicial review, supplemented by any additional evidence received by the court under this chapter; (f) The agency…”
Conway v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 120 P.3d 130 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “” RCW 34.05.425(l)(c). AR at 10. RCW 70.128.”
Chandler v. Off. of the Ins. Comm'r, 173 P.3d 275 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “(3) RCW 34.05.425 and 34.05.455 apply to any person reviewing an initial order on behalf of an agency as part of the decision process, and to persons communicating with them, to the same extent that it is applicable to presiding officers.”
Davita, Inc. v. Wash. State Doh., 151 P.3d 1095 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 34.05.425(1)(b). And the presiding officer is defined in the Department of Health administrative code as "the person who is assigned to conduct an adjudicative hearing" who "may be an employee of the department who is authorized to issue a final decision as designee of the…”
Nationscapital Mortg. Corp. v. STATE, DFI, 137 P.3d 78 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “" RCW 34.05.425(3), .464(3). A person who has served as an investigator, prosecutor, or advocate may not serve as a presiding officer in the same proceeding.”
Stuewe v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 991 P.2d 634 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “e) The order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court, which includes the agency record for judicial review, supplemented by any additional evidence received by the court under this chapter; *950 (f) The agency…”
Show all 42 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.425(1) — 4 cases
Jackstadt v. Washington State Patrol, 976 P.2d 190 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “464(3) provides that RCW 34.05.425 and 34.05.455 apply to a reviewing officer "to the same extent that it is applicable to presiding officers.”
Washington State Dept. of Health v. Yow, 199 P.3d 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
Richard Severson v. State Of Washington Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Janet Saarela v. State Of Washington Dep't Of Soc. & Health Servs. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.425(1)(a) — 1 case
Westberry v. Interstate Distrib. Co., 263 P.3d 1251 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.425(1)(b) — 1 case
Davita, Inc. v. Wash. State Doh., 151 P.3d 1095 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 34.05.425(1)(b). And the presiding officer is defined in the Department of Health administrative code as "the person who is assigned to conduct an adjudicative hearing" who "may be an employee of the department who is authorized to issue a final decision as designee of the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.425(2) — 2 cases
Abdullatif Arishi v. Washington State Univ., 385 P.3d 251 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Boise Cascade Corp. v. Washington Toxics Coalition, 843 P.2d 1092 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.425(3) — 9 cases
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec, 197 P.3d 1153 (Wash. 2008). “See RCW 34.05.425(3); AR at 2518-19 (Lathrop's petition for review of EFSEC order denying motion to disqualify).”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 165 Wash. 2d 275 (Wash. 2008). “See RCW 34.05.425(3); AR at 2518-19 (Lathrop’s petition for review of EFSEC order denying motion to disqualify).”
Nationscapital Mortg. Corp. v. Dep't of Fin. Institutions, 133 Wash. App. 723 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “” RCW 34.05.425(3), .464(3). A person who has served as an investigator, prosecutor, or advocate may not serve as a presiding officer in the same proceeding.”
Jackstadt v. Washington State Patrol, 976 P.2d 190 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “464(3) provides that RCW 34.05.425 and 34.05.455 apply to a reviewing officer "to the same extent that it is applicable to presiding officers.”
Sherman v. State, 905 P.2d 355 (Wash. 1995). “In support of its ruling, the trial court relied upon the Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC), RCW 34.05.425, and the appearance of fairness doctrine.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.425(7) — 3 cases
Nationscapital Mortg. Corp. v. Dep't of Fin. Institutions, 133 Wash. App. 723 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “” RCW 34.05.425(3), .464(3). A person who has served as an investigator, prosecutor, or advocate may not serve as a presiding officer in the same proceeding.”
Jackstadt v. Washington State Patrol, 976 P.2d 190 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “464(3) provides that RCW 34.05.425 and 34.05.455 apply to a reviewing officer "to the same extent that it is applicable to presiding officers.”
Nationscapital Mortg. Corp. v. STATE, DFI, 137 P.3d 78 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “" RCW 34.05.425(3), .464(3). A person who has served as an investigator, prosecutor, or advocate may not serve as a presiding officer in the same proceeding.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.425(8) — 1 case
Jackstadt v. Washington State Patrol, 976 P.2d 190 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “464(3) provides that RCW 34.05.425 and 34.05.455 apply to a reviewing officer "to the same extent that it is applicable to presiding officers.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.425(l)(a) — 1 case
Westberry v. Interstate Distrib. Co., 164 Wash. App. 196 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.425(l)(b) — 2 cases
Lang v. Dental Quality Assurance Comm'n, 156 P.3d 919 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
Yow v. Dep't of Health Unlicensed Practice Prog., 199 P.3d 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.425(l)(c) — 2 cases
Conway v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 120 P.3d 130 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “” RCW 34.05.425(l)(c). AR at 10. RCW 70.128.”
Pal v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 342 P.3d 1190 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.