Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.178
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) For the purposes of this title, the monthly wages the worker was receiving from all employment at the time of injury shall be the basis upon which compensation is computed unless otherwise provided specifically in the statute concerned. In cases where the worker's wages are not fixed by the month, they shall be determined by multiplying the daily wage the worker was receiving at the time of the injury:
(a) By five, if the worker was normally employed one day a week;
(b) By nine, if the worker was normally employed two days a week;
(c) By thirteen, if the worker was normally employed three days a week;
(d) By eighteen, if the worker was normally employed four days a week;
(e) By twenty-two, if the worker was normally employed five days a week;
(f) By twenty-six, if the worker was normally employed six days a week;
(g) By thirty, if the worker was normally employed seven days a week.
The term "wages" shall include the reasonable value of board, housing, fuel, or other consideration of like nature received from the employer as part of the contract of hire, but shall not include overtime pay except in cases under subsection (2) of this section. As consideration of like nature to board, housing, and fuel, wages shall also include the employer's payment or contributions, or appropriate portions thereof, for health care benefits unless the employer continues ongoing and current payment or contributions for these benefits at the same level as provided at the time of injury. However, tips shall also be considered wages only to the extent such tips are reported to the employer for federal income tax purposes. The daily wage shall be the hourly wage multiplied by the number of hours the worker is normally employed. The number of hours the worker is normally employed shall be determined by the department in a fair and reasonable manner, which may include averaging the number of hours worked per day.
(2) In cases where (a) the worker's employment is exclusively seasonal in nature or (b) the worker's current employment or his or her relation to his or her employment is essentially part-time or intermittent, the monthly wage shall be determined by dividing by twelve the total wages earned, including overtime, from all employment in any twelve successive calendar months preceding the injury which fairly represent the claimant's employment pattern.
(3) If, within the twelve months immediately preceding the injury, the worker has received from the employer at the time of injury a bonus as part of the contract of hire, the average monthly value of such bonus shall be included in determining the worker's monthly wages.
(4) In cases where a wage has not been fixed or cannot be reasonably and fairly determined, the monthly wage shall be computed on the basis of the usual wage paid other employees engaged in like or similar occupations where the wages are fixed.
(5)(a) In the case of any person described in *RCW 49.46.010(3)(k), the monthly wage shall be computed on the basis of the usual wage paid other employees engaged in like or similar occupations where the wages are fixed.
(b) For purposes of this subsection (5), "other employees" does not include any person described in *RCW 49.46.010(3)(k).
[ 2022 c 53 s 1; 2007 c 297 s 1; 1988 c 161 s 12; 1980 c 14 s 5. Prior: 1977 ex.s. c 350 s 14; 1977 ex.s. c 323 s 6; 1971 ex.s. c 289 s 14.]
Notes:
Report to the legislature—2022 c 53: "By December 1, 2024, and in compliance with RCW 43.01.036, the department of labor and industries must submit a report to the legislature that details the number of claims which were impacted by this act from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2024." [ 2022 c 53 s 2.]
Application—2007 c 297 s 1: "Section 1 of this act applies to all wage determinations issued on or after July 22, 2007." [ 2007 c 297 s 2.]
Severability—Effective date—1977 ex.s. c 323: See notes following RCW 51.04.040.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Cockle v. Dept. of Labor and Industries
Cockle v. Dept. of Labor and Industries (2001)
“We are asked for the first time to decide whether the value of employer-provided health care coverage is included in the basis used to calculate workers' compensation payments under RCW 51.08.178. The Department of Labor and Industries calculated Respondent Dianne Cockle's…”
Cockle v. Department of Labor & Industries (2001)
“— We are asked for the first time to decide whether the value of employer-provided health care coverage is included in the basis used to calculate workers’ compensation payments under RCW 51.08.178. The Department of Labor and Industries calculated Respondent Dianne Cockle’s…”
Gallo v. Department of Labor and Industries (2005)
“For purposes of computing Gallo's time-loss compensation and loss of earnings power pursuant to RCW 51.08.178, the Board's industrial appeals judge (IAJ) included Gallo's medical insurance benefits as wages but excluded contributions for pension and apprenticeship training.”
Gallo v. Department of Labor & Industries (2005)
“For purposes of computing Gallo’s time-loss compensation and loss of earnings power pursuant to RCW 51.08.178, the Board’s industrial appeals judge (IAJ) included Gallo’s medical insurance benefits as wages but excluded contributions for pension and apprenticeship training.”
Watson v. Department of Labor and Industries (2006)
“The statute provides that this provision "shall be the basis upon which compensation is computed unless otherwise provided specifically in the statute concerned.”
Watson v. Department of Labor & Industries (2006)
“¶1 The Department of Labor and Industries (Department) appeals a superior court order requiring it to recalculate Robert Watson’s monthly wages for time loss compensation under RCW 51.08.178(1). The Department had initially classified Watson as an essentially intermittent…”
Department of Labor & Industries v. Granger (2007)
“II Analysis f5 RCW 51.08.178. This case poses a question of statutory interpretation, a question of law that we review de novo.”
Department v. Granger (2007)
“II Analysis ¶ 5 RCW 51.08.178: This case poses a question of statutory interpretation, a question *841 of law that we review de novo.”
Double D Hop Ranch v. Sanchez (1997)
“[4] At issue is the Board's interpretation of RCW 51.08.178, which provides in relevant part: (1) For the purposes of this title, the monthly wages the worker was receiving from all employment at the time of injury shall be the basis upon which compensation is computed unless…”
Double D Hop Ranch v. Sanchez (1997)
“1 ANALYSIS At issue is whether Sanchez’s employment was "exclusively seasonal in nature” for purposes of RCW 51.08.178, which provides in relevant part: (1) For the purposes of this title, the monthly wages the worker was receiving from all employment at the time of injury shall…”
Malang v. DEPARTMENT OF L&I (2007)
“¶ 8 The meaning of the term "wages" as applied to a sole proprietor requires interpreting RCW 51.08.178 and is therefore a question of law that we review de novo.”
Malang v. Department of Labor & Industries (2007)
“¶8 The meaning of the term “wages” as applied to a sole proprietor requires interpreting RCW 51.08.178 and is therefore a question of law that we review de novo.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.178(1) — 55 cases
Cockle v. Dept. of Labor and Industries (2001)
“We are asked for the first time to decide whether the value of employer-provided health care coverage is included in the basis used to calculate workers' compensation payments under RCW 51.08.178. The Department of Labor and Industries calculated Respondent Dianne Cockle's…”
Cockle v. Department of Labor & Industries (2001)
“— We are asked for the first time to decide whether the value of employer-provided health care coverage is included in the basis used to calculate workers’ compensation payments under RCW 51.08.178. The Department of Labor and Industries calculated Respondent Dianne Cockle’s…”
Gallo v. Department of Labor and Industries (2005)
“For purposes of computing Gallo's time-loss compensation and loss of earnings power pursuant to RCW 51.08.178, the Board's industrial appeals judge (IAJ) included Gallo's medical insurance benefits as wages but excluded contributions for pension and apprenticeship training.”
Gallo v. Department of Labor & Industries (2005)
“For purposes of computing Gallo’s time-loss compensation and loss of earnings power pursuant to RCW 51.08.178, the Board’s industrial appeals judge (IAJ) included Gallo’s medical insurance benefits as wages but excluded contributions for pension and apprenticeship training.”
Watson v. Department of Labor and Industries (2006)
“The statute provides that this provision "shall be the basis upon which compensation is computed unless otherwise provided specifically in the statute concerned.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.178(1)(a) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.178(1)(e) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.178(1)(g) — 2 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.178(2) — 16 cases
Watson v. Department of Labor and Industries (2006)
“The statute provides that this provision "shall be the basis upon which compensation is computed unless otherwise provided specifically in the statute concerned.”
Watson v. Department of Labor & Industries (2006)
“¶1 The Department of Labor and Industries (Department) appeals a superior court order requiring it to recalculate Robert Watson’s monthly wages for time loss compensation under RCW 51.08.178(1). The Department had initially classified Watson as an essentially intermittent…”
Double D Hop Ranch v. Sanchez (1997)
“1 ANALYSIS At issue is whether Sanchez’s employment was "exclusively seasonal in nature” for purposes of RCW 51.08.178, which provides in relevant part: (1) For the purposes of this title, the monthly wages the worker was receiving from all employment at the time of injury shall…”
Double D Hop Ranch v. Sanchez (1997)
“[4] At issue is the Board's interpretation of RCW 51.08.178, which provides in relevant part: (1) For the purposes of this title, the monthly wages the worker was receiving from all employment at the time of injury shall be the basis upon which compensation is computed unless…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.178(2)(a) — 7 cases
Double D Hop Ranch v. Sanchez (1997)
“[4] At issue is the Board's interpretation of RCW 51.08.178, which provides in relevant part: (1) For the purposes of this title, the monthly wages the worker was receiving from all employment at the time of injury shall be the basis upon which compensation is computed unless…”
Double D Hop Ranch v. Sanchez (1997)
“1 ANALYSIS At issue is whether Sanchez’s employment was "exclusively seasonal in nature” for purposes of RCW 51.08.178, which provides in relevant part: (1) For the purposes of this title, the monthly wages the worker was receiving from all employment at the time of injury shall…”
Watson v. Department of Labor and Industries (2006)
“The statute provides that this provision "shall be the basis upon which compensation is computed unless otherwise provided specifically in the statute concerned.”
Watson v. Department of Labor & Industries (2006)
“¶1 The Department of Labor and Industries (Department) appeals a superior court order requiring it to recalculate Robert Watson’s monthly wages for time loss compensation under RCW 51.08.178(1). The Department had initially classified Watson as an essentially intermittent…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.178(2)(b) — 8 cases
Watson v. Department of Labor and Industries (2006)
“The statute provides that this provision "shall be the basis upon which compensation is computed unless otherwise provided specifically in the statute concerned.”
Watson v. Department of Labor & Industries (2006)
“¶1 The Department of Labor and Industries (Department) appeals a superior court order requiring it to recalculate Robert Watson’s monthly wages for time loss compensation under RCW 51.08.178(1). The Department had initially classified Watson as an essentially intermittent…”
Double D Hop Ranch v. Sanchez (1997)
“1 ANALYSIS At issue is whether Sanchez’s employment was "exclusively seasonal in nature” for purposes of RCW 51.08.178, which provides in relevant part: (1) For the purposes of this title, the monthly wages the worker was receiving from all employment at the time of injury shall…”
Double D Hop Ranch v. Sanchez (1997)
“[4] At issue is the Board's interpretation of RCW 51.08.178, which provides in relevant part: (1) For the purposes of this title, the monthly wages the worker was receiving from all employment at the time of injury shall be the basis upon which compensation is computed unless…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.178(3) — 3 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.178(4) — 8 cases
Malang v. DEPARTMENT OF L&I (2007)
“¶ 8 The meaning of the term "wages" as applied to a sole proprietor requires interpreting RCW 51.08.178 and is therefore a question of law that we review de novo.”
Malang v. Department of Labor & Industries (2007)
“¶8 The meaning of the term “wages” as applied to a sole proprietor requires interpreting RCW 51.08.178 and is therefore a question of law that we review de novo.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.178(f) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.178(l) — 1 case
Gallo v. Department of Labor & Industries (2005)
“For purposes of computing Gallo’s time-loss compensation and loss of earnings power pursuant to RCW 51.08.178, the Board’s industrial appeals judge (IAJ) included Gallo’s medical insurance benefits as wages but excluded contributions for pension and apprenticeship training.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.178(l)(g) — 1 case
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.