Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.020 (2026)

"Beneficiary."

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
"Beneficiary" means a husband, wife, child, or dependent of a worker in whom shall vest a right to receive payment under this title: PROVIDED, That a husband or wife of an injured worker, living separate and apart in a state of abandonment, regardless of the party responsible therefor, for more than one year at the time of the injury or subsequently, shall not be a beneficiary. A spouse who has lived separate and apart from the other spouse for the period of two years and who has not, during that time, received, or attempted by process of law to collect, funds for maintenance, shall be deemed living in a state of abandonment.
[ 1977 ex.s. c 350 s 10; 1973 1st ex.s. c 154 s 91; 1961 c 23 s 51.08.020. Prior: 1957 c 70 s 6; prior: (i) 1939 c 41 s 2, part; 1929 c 132 s 1, part; 1927 c 310 s 2, part; 1921 c 182 s 2, part; 1919 c 131 s 2, part; 1917 c 120 s 1, part; 1911 c 74 s 3, part; RRS s 7675, part. (ii) 1949 c 219 s 1, part; 1947 c 246 s 1, part; 1929 c 132 s 2, part; 1927 c 310 s 4, part; 1923 c 136 s 2, part; 1919 c 131 s 4, part; 1917 c 28 s 1, part; 1913 c 148 s 1, part; 1911 c 74 s 5, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 7679, part.]

Notes:

Severability—1973 1st ex.s. c 154: See note following RCW 2.12.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1974–2020 · leading case: Marley v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 886 P.2d 189 (Wash. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marley v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 886 P.2d 189 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 3× “Marley was living in a state of abandonment under RCW 51.08.020, 1 the investigator told her that she did not qualify for payments as a beneficiary.”
Willoughby v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 147 Wash. 2d 725 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “” RCW 51.08.020. A “dependent” is defined as “any of the following named relatives of a worker whose death results from any injury and who leaves surviving no widow, widower, or child, viz: Father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather, stepmother, grandson,…”
Jepson v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 573 P.2d 10 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 2× “Second, the word "beneficiary" as defined by RCW 51.08.020 means "a husband, wife, child, or dependent of a workman in whom shall vest a right to receive payment under this title .”
Bankhead v. Aztec Constr. Co., 737 P.2d 1291 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “060 authorized the Department to obtain reimbursement only from an injured worker or beneficiary and not from the personal representative of a deceased worker.”
Marley v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 864 P.2d 960 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Marley to circumvent the 60-day appeal limitation, and (2) child support does not necessarily qualify as maintenance under RCW 51.08.020. We agree with the Department on the first issue and reverse the trial court on this basis.”
Downey v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 827 P.2d 1101 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “) RCW 51.08.020, in part. First, the statute uses the word "shall", implying futurity rather than a contemporaneous right to benefits.”
Davis v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 166 Wash. App. 494 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “*497 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no benefits or compensation will be paid to or on behalf of the claimant or beneficiary as defined in RCW 51.08.020 until such time as the excess recovery totaling $8,907.”
Willoughby v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 57 P.3d 611 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “RCW 51.08.020; see RCW 51.08.030 (defining "child"); RCW 51.”
Davis v. Washington State Dept. of Labor, 268 P.3d 1033 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no benefits or compensation will be paid to or on behalf of the claimant or beneficiary as defined in RCW 51.08.020 until such time as the excess recovery totaling $8,907.”
Eyle v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 519 P.2d 1020 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “2 Clearly, however, the trial court determined *451 and the record supports a finding that Radine Eyle was disqualified from being considered a beneficiary under the act because of the provisions of RCW 51.08.020 which preclude a wife “living in a state of abandonment” from…”
Ronald Wastewater Dist. v. Olympic View Water& Sewer Dist. (Wash. 2020). “The plaintiff argued that the Department of Labor and Industries’ order was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it incorrectly determined that she was living in a state of abandonment under RCW 51.08.020. We held that at most, the department made an erroneous…”
Lee Richardson v. Dept Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “It is ordered that no benefits or compensation will be paid to or on behalf of claimant or beneficiary as defined by RCW 51.08.020 until such time the excess recovery totaling $104,376.”
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.