Wash. Rev. Code » Title 34 · Chapter 34.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.12.060 (2026)

Initial decision or proposal for decision—Findings of fact and conclusions of law—Inapplicability to state patrol disciplinary hearings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When an administrative law judge presides at a hearing under this chapter and a majority of the officials of the agency who are to render the final decision have not heard substantially all of the oral testimony and read all exhibits submitted by any party, it shall be the duty of such judge, or in the event of his or her unavailability or incapacity, of another judge appointed by the chief administrative law judge, to issue an initial decision or proposal for decision including findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with RCW 34.05.461 or 34.05.485. However, this section does not apply to a state patrol disciplinary hearing conducted under RCW 43.43.090.
[ 2011 c 336 s 763; 1989 c 175 s 34; 1984 c 141 s 7; 1982 c 189 s 2; 1981 c 67 s 6.]

Notes:

Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.
Effective date—1982 c 189: See note following RCW 34.12.020.
Effective dates—Severability—1981 c 67: See notes following RCW 34.12.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1985–2015 · leading case: Pal v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 342 P.3d 1190 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pal v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 342 P.3d 1190 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “The ALJ ruled that it had no jurisdiction because Pal failed to comply with WAC 388-71-01240(1), and the Board agreed. However, this technically is incorrect.”
Crane v. Stanwood Sch. Dist., 705 P.2d 1236 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 34.12.060 further provides that when a final decision is to be rendered by someone other than the ALJ, that judge must issue an initial or proposed decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
Janet Saarela v. State Of Washington Dep't Of Soc. & Health Servs. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “"All time requirements necessarily involve a judgment by the legislature or a court as to the amount of time necessary to achieve the legislative or judicial purpose."22 DSHS, acting under delegated legislature authority, adopted a 30- day limitations period for requesting…”
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.