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

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.464 (2026)

Review of initial orders

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) As authorized by law, an agency may by rule provide that initial orders in specified classes of cases may become final without further agency action unless, within a specified period, (a) the agency head upon its own motion determines that the initial order should be reviewed, or (b) a party to the proceedings files a petition for administrative review of the initial order. Upon occurrence of either event, notice shall be given to all parties to the proceeding.
(2) As authorized by law, an agency head may appoint a person to review initial orders and to prepare and enter final agency orders.
(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.
(4) The officer reviewing the initial order (including the agency head reviewing an initial order) is, for the purposes of this chapter, termed the reviewing officer. The reviewing officer shall exercise all the decision-making power that the reviewing officer would have had to decide and enter the final order had the reviewing officer presided over the hearing, except to the extent that the issues subject to review are limited by a provision of law or by the reviewing officer upon notice to all the parties. In reviewing findings of fact by presiding officers, the reviewing officers shall give due regard to the presiding officer's opportunity to observe the witnesses.
(5) The reviewing officer shall personally consider the whole record or such portions of it as may be cited by the parties.
(6) The reviewing officer shall afford each party an opportunity to present written argument and may afford each party an opportunity to present oral argument.
(7) The reviewing officer shall enter a final order disposing of the proceeding or remand the matter for further proceedings, with instructions to the presiding officer who entered the initial order. Upon remanding a matter, the reviewing officer shall order such temporary relief as is authorized and appropriate.
(8) A final order shall include, or incorporate by reference to the initial order, all matters required by RCW 34.05.461(3).
(9) The reviewing officer shall cause copies of the final order or order remanding the matter for further proceedings to be served upon each party.
[ 1989 c 175 s 20; 1988 c 288 s 419.]

Notes:

Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Kabbae v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 144 Wash. App. 432 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kabbae v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 144 Wash. App. 432 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 21× “464(4) states the review officer has the authority to exercise the same decision-making power as the ALJ unless limited by law or by the review officer with notice to all parties.”
Kabbae v. Depart. of Soc. & Health Ser., 192 P.3d 903 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 21× “464(4) states the review officer has the authority to exercise the same decision making power as the ALJ unless limited by law or by the review officer with notice to all parties.”
Tapper v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 858 P.2d 494 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 9× “RCW 34.05.464(4) states, in part: (4) The officer reviewing the initial order (including the agency head reviewing an initial order) is, for the purposes of this chapter, termed the reviewing officer.”
Verda Lee Crosswhite Vv Washington State Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 389 P.3d 731 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “Consistent with RCW 34.05.464, the Department provides by rule that the I ! decision of an ALJ in an appeal from a substantiated finding of abuse of a vulnerable I.”
Towle v. State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, 971 P.2d 591 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 11× “oral argument[,]" there is no mention of presenting additional evidence to the reviewing officer.”
Towle v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 94 Wash. App. 196 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 11× “oral argument[,]” there is no mention of presenting additional evidence to the reviewing officer.”
Chandler v. Off. of the Ins. Comm'r, 173 P.3d 275 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “In RCW 34.05.464, WAPA sets forth procedures by which agencies may conduct internal reviews of initial orders.”
Hardee v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 256 P.3d 339 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 4× “2d 494 (emphasis omitted) (quoting RCW 34.05.464(4)); see also WAC XXX-XX-XXXX (providing the Department's own definition of the review judge's authority).”
Davita, Inc. v. Wash. State Doh., 151 P.3d 1095 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “Thus, the HLJ possesses all the decision making power; she does not need to rely on RCW 34.05.464. In other words, she does not need to substitute her judgment for that of the fact finder; she is the agency's fact finder.”
DaVita, Inc. v. Dep't of Health, 137 Wash. App. 174 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “Thus, the HLJ possesses all the decision-making power; she does not need to rely on RCW 34.05.464. In other words, she does not need to substitute her judgment for that of the fact finder; she is the agency’s fact finder.”
Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 155 Wash. App. 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “Smith also argues that the Commissioner’s findings violate RCW 34.05.464(4) because it takes a contrary position to that of the ALJ regarding credibility determinations.”
Union Bay Pres. Coal. v. COSMOS DEVELOP., 902 P.2d 1247 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 4× “461(9) (the presiding officer to "cause copies of the order to be served on each party and the agency"); RCW 34.05.464(1) (notice of a party's petition for review shall "be given to all parties to the proceeding"); RCW 34.”
Show all 73 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.464(1) — 5 cases
Union Bay Pres. Coal. v. COSMOS DEVELOP., 902 P.2d 1247 (Wash. 1995). “461(9) (the presiding officer to "cause copies of the order to be served on each party and the agency"); RCW 34.05.464(1) (notice of a party's petition for review shall "be given to all parties to the proceeding"); RCW 34.”
Union Bay Pres. Coalition v. Cosmos Dev. & Admin. Corp., 127 Wash. 2d 614 (Wash. 1995).
Towle v. State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, 971 P.2d 591 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “oral argument[,]" there is no mention of presenting additional evidence to the reviewing officer.”
Towle v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 94 Wash. App. 196 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “oral argument[,]” there is no mention of presenting additional evidence to the reviewing officer.”
Devore v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 906 P.2d 1016 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.464(2) — 2 cases
Jackstadt v. Washington State Patrol, 976 P.2d 190 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
All Nat. Herbs, Llc, V. State Liquor & Cannabis Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.464(3) — 2 cases
Jackstadt v. Washington State Patrol, 976 P.2d 190 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
Advanced Drilling Llc, V. State Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.464(4) — 57 cases
Kabbae v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 144 Wash. App. 432 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “464(4) states the review officer has the authority to exercise the same decision-making power as the ALJ unless limited by law or by the review officer with notice to all parties.”
Kabbae v. Depart. of Soc. & Health Ser., 192 P.3d 903 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “464(4) states the review officer has the authority to exercise the same decision making power as the ALJ unless limited by law or by the review officer with notice to all parties.”
Tapper v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 858 P.2d 494 (Wash. 1993). “RCW 34.05.464(4) states, in part: (4) The officer reviewing the initial order (including the agency head reviewing an initial order) is, for the purposes of this chapter, termed the reviewing officer.”
Verda Lee Crosswhite Vv Washington State Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 389 P.3d 731 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Consistent with RCW 34.05.464, the Department provides by rule that the I ! decision of an ALJ in an appeal from a substantiated finding of abuse of a vulnerable I.”
Hardee v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 256 P.3d 339 (Wash. 2011). “2d 494 (emphasis omitted) (quoting RCW 34.05.464(4)); see also WAC XXX-XX-XXXX (providing the Department's own definition of the review judge's authority).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.464(5) — 5 cases
Towle v. State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, 971 P.2d 591 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “oral argument[,]" there is no mention of presenting additional evidence to the reviewing officer.”
Towle v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 94 Wash. App. 196 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “oral argument[,]” there is no mention of presenting additional evidence to the reviewing officer.”
Davita, Inc. v. Wash. State Doh., 151 P.3d 1095 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Thus, the HLJ possesses all the decision making power; she does not need to rely on RCW 34.05.464. In other words, she does not need to substitute her judgment for that of the fact finder; she is the agency's fact finder.”
DaVita, Inc. v. Dep't of Health, 137 Wash. App. 174 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Thus, the HLJ possesses all the decision-making power; she does not need to rely on RCW 34.05.464. In other words, she does not need to substitute her judgment for that of the fact finder; she is the agency’s fact finder.”
Advanced Drilling Llc, V. State Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.464(7) — 1 case
All Nat. Herbs, Llc, V. State Liquor & Cannabis Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.464(9) — 5 cases
Union Bay Pres. Coal. v. COSMOS DEVELOP., 902 P.2d 1247 (Wash. 1995). “461(9) (the presiding officer to "cause copies of the order to be served on each party and the agency"); RCW 34.05.464(1) (notice of a party's petition for review shall "be given to all parties to the proceeding"); RCW 34.”
Union Bay Pres. Coalition v. Cosmos Dev. & Admin. Corp., 127 Wash. 2d 614 (Wash. 1995).
Devore v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 906 P.2d 1016 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
Cont'l Sports Corp. v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 910 P.2d 1284 (Wash. 1996).
Christelle Cunningham v. State Of Wa., Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
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.