Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.050 (2026)

Death benefits

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 2034-S2.SL) ***

(1) Where death results from the injury the expenses of burial not to exceed two hundred percent of the average monthly wage in the state as defined in RCW 51.08.018 shall be paid.

(2)(a) Where death results from the injury, a surviving spouse of a deceased worker eligible for benefits under this title shall receive monthly for life or until remarriage payments according to the following schedule:

(i) If there are no children of the deceased worker, sixty percent of the wages of the deceased worker;

(ii) If there is one child of the deceased worker and in the legal custody of such spouse, sixty-two percent of the wages of the deceased worker;

(iii) If there are two children of the deceased worker and in the legal custody of such spouse, sixty-four percent of the wages of the deceased worker;

(iv) If there are three children of the deceased worker and in the legal custody of such spouse, sixty-six percent of the wages of the deceased worker;

(v) If there are four children of the deceased worker and in the legal custody of such spouse, sixty-eight percent of the wages of the deceased worker; or

(vi) If there are five or more children of the deceased worker and in the legal custody of such spouse, seventy percent of the wages of the deceased worker.

(b) Where the surviving spouse does not have legal custody of any child or children of the deceased worker or where after the death of the worker legal custody of such child or children passes from such surviving spouse to another, any payment on account of such child or children not in the legal custody of the surviving spouse shall be made to the person or persons having legal custody of such child or children. The amount of such payments shall be five percent of the monthly benefits payable as a result of the worker's death for each such child but such payments shall not exceed twenty-five percent. Such payments on account of such child or children shall be subtracted from the amount to which such surviving spouse would have been entitled had such surviving spouse had legal custody of all of the children and the surviving spouse shall receive the remainder after such payments on account of such child or children have been subtracted. Such payments on account of a child or children not in the legal custody of such surviving spouse shall be apportioned equally among such children.

(c) Payments to the surviving spouse of the deceased worker shall cease at the end of the month in which remarriage occurs: PROVIDED, That a monthly payment shall be made to the child or children of the deceased worker from the month following such remarriage in a sum equal to five percent of the wages of the deceased worker for one child and a sum equal to five percent for each additional child up to a maximum of five such children. Payments to such child or children shall be apportioned equally among such children. Such sum shall be in place of any payments theretofore made for the benefit of or on account of any such child or children. If the surviving spouse does not have legal custody of any child or children of the deceased worker, or if after the death of the worker, legal custody of such child or children passes from such surviving spouse to another, any payment on account of such child or children not in the legal custody of the surviving spouse shall be made to the person or persons having legal custody of such child or children.

(d) In no event shall the monthly payments provided in subsection (2) of this section:

(i) Exceed the applicable percentage of the average monthly wage in the state as computed under RCW 51.08.018 as follows:

	AFTER	PERCENTAGE
	June 30, 1993	105%
	June 30, 1994	110%
	June 30, 1995	115%
	June 30, 1996	120%

(ii) For dates of injury or disease manifestation after July 1, 2008, be less than fifteen percent of the average monthly wage in the state as computed under RCW 51.08.018 plus an additional ten dollars per month for a surviving spouse and an additional ten dollars per month for each child of the worker up to a maximum of five children. However, if the monthly payment computed under this subsection (2)(d)(ii) is greater than one hundred percent of the wages of the deceased worker as determined under RCW 51.08.178, the monthly payment due to the surviving spouse shall be equal to the greater of the monthly wages of the deceased worker or the minimum benefit set forth in this section on June 30, 2008.

(e) In addition to the monthly payments provided for in subsection (2)(a) through (c) of this section, a surviving spouse or child or children of such worker if there is no surviving spouse, or dependent parent or parents, if there is no surviving spouse or child or children of any such deceased worker shall be forthwith paid a sum equal to one hundred percent of the average monthly wage in the state as defined in RCW 51.08.018, any such children, or parents to share and share alike in said sum.

(f) Upon remarriage of a surviving spouse the monthly payments for the child or children shall continue as provided in this section, but the monthly payments to such surviving spouse shall cease at the end of the month during which remarriage occurs. However, after September 8, 1975, an otherwise eligible surviving spouse of a worker who died at any time prior to or after September 8, 1975, shall have an option of:

(i)(A) Receiving, once and for all, a lump sum of twenty-four times the monthly compensation rate in effect on the date of remarriage allocable to the spouse for himself or herself pursuant to subsection (2)(a)(i) of this section and subject to any modifications specified under subsection (2)(d) of this section and RCW 51.32.075(3) or fifty percent of the then remaining annuity value of his or her pension, whichever is the lesser: PROVIDED, That if the injury occurred prior to July 28, 1991, the remarriage benefit lump sum available shall be as provided in the remarriage benefit schedules then in effect;

(B) If a surviving spouse is the surviving spouse of a member of the law enforcement officers' and firefighters' retirement system under chapter 41.26 RCW or the state patrol retirement system under chapter 43.43 RCW, the surviving spouse may receive a lump sum of thirty-six times the monthly compensation rate in effect on the date of remarriage allocable to the spouse for himself or herself pursuant to subsection (2)(a)(i) of this section and RCW 51.32.075(3) or fifty percent of the remaining annuity value of his or her pension provided under this chapter, whichever is the lesser: PROVIDED, That if the injury occurred prior to July 28, 1991, the lump sum benefit shall be as provided in the remarriage benefit schedules then in effect; or

(ii) If a surviving spouse does not choose the option specified in subsection (2)(f)(i) of this section to accept the lump sum payment, the remarriage of the surviving spouse of a worker shall not bar him or her from claiming the lump sum payment authorized in subsection (2)(f)(i) of this section during the life of the remarriage, or shall not prevent subsequent monthly payments to him or to her if the remarriage has been terminated by death or has been dissolved or annulled by valid court decree provided he or she has not previously accepted the lump sum payment.

(g) If the surviving spouse during the remarriage should die without having previously received the lump sum payment provided in subsection (2)(f)(i) of this section, his or her estate shall be entitled to receive the sum specified under subsection (2)(f)(i) of this section or fifty percent of the then remaining annuity value of his or her pension whichever is the lesser.

(h) The effective date of resumption of payments under subsection (2)(f)(ii) of this section to a surviving spouse based upon termination of a remarriage by death, annulment, or dissolution shall be the date of the death or the date the judicial decree of annulment or dissolution becomes final and when application for the payments has been received.

(i) If it should be necessary to increase the reserves in the reserve fund or to create a new pension reserve fund as a result of the amendments in chapter 45, Laws of 1975-'76 2nd ex. sess., the amount of such increase in pension reserve in any such case shall be transferred to the reserve fund from the supplemental pension fund.

(3) If there is a child or children and no surviving spouse of the deceased worker or the surviving spouse is not eligible for benefits under this title, a sum equal to thirty-five percent of the wages of the deceased worker shall be paid monthly for one child and a sum equivalent to fifteen percent of such wage shall be paid monthly for each additional child, the total of such sum to be divided among such children, share and share alike: PROVIDED, That benefits under this subsection or subsection (4) of this section shall not exceed the lesser of sixty-five percent of the wages of the deceased worker at the time of his or her death or the applicable percentage of the average monthly wage in the state as defined in RCW 51.08.018, as follows:

	AFTER	PERCENTAGE
	June 30, 1993	105%
	June 30, 1994	110%
	June 30, 1995	115%
	June 30, 1996	120%

(4) In the event a surviving spouse receiving monthly payments dies, the child or children of the deceased worker shall receive the same payment as provided in subsection (3) of this section.

(5) If the worker leaves no surviving spouse or child, but leaves a dependent or dependents, a monthly payment shall be made to each dependent equal to fifty percent of the average monthly support actually received by such dependent from the worker during the twelve months next preceding the occurrence of the injury, but the total payment to all dependents in any case shall not exceed the lesser of sixty-five percent of the wages of the deceased worker at the time of his or her death or the applicable percentage of the average monthly wage in the state as defined in RCW 51.08.018 as follows:

	AFTER	PERCENTAGE
	June 30, 1993	105%
	June 30, 1994	110%
	June 30, 1995	115%
	June 30, 1996	120%

If any dependent is under the age of eighteen years at the time of the occurrence of the injury, the payment to such dependent shall cease when such dependent reaches the age of eighteen years except such payments shall continue until the dependent reaches age twenty-three while permanently enrolled at a full time course in an accredited school. The payment to any dependent shall cease if and when, under the same circumstances, the necessity creating the dependency would have ceased if the injury had not happened.

(6) For claims filed prior to July 1, 1986, if the injured worker dies during the period of permanent total disability, whatever the cause of death, leaving a surviving spouse, or child, or children, the surviving spouse or child or children shall receive benefits as if death resulted from the injury as provided in subsections (2) through (4) of this section. Upon remarriage or death of such surviving spouse, the payments to such child or children shall be made as provided in subsection (2) of this section when the surviving spouse of a deceased worker remarries.

(7) For claims filed on or after July 1, 1986, every worker who becomes eligible for permanent total disability benefits shall elect an option as provided in RCW 51.32.067.

[ 2010 c 261 s 3; 2007 c 284 s 1; 1995 c 199 s 6; 1993 c 521 s 1; 1991 c 88 s 2; 1988 c 161 s 2; 1986 c 58 s 3; 1982 c 63 s 18; 1977 ex.s. c 350 s 42; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 45 s 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 179 s 1; 1973 1st ex.s. c 154 s 96; 1972 ex.s. c 43 s 19; 1971 ex.s. c 289 s 7; 1965 ex.s. c 122 s 1; 1961 c 274 s 1; 1961 c 23 s 51.32.050. Prior: 1957 c 70 s 30; 1951 c 115 s 1; prior: 1949 c 219 s 1, part; 1947 c 246 s 1, part; 1941 c 209 s 1; 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:

Effective date—2007 c 284: "This act takes effect July 1, 2008." [ 2007 c 284 s 4.]

Severability—1995 c 199: See note following RCW 51.12.120.

Effective date—1993 c 521: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect July 1, 1993." [ 1993 c 521 s 4.]

Benefit increases—Application to certain retrospective rating agreements—1988 c 161: "The increases in benefits in RCW 51.32.050, 51.32.060, 51.32.090, and 51.32.180, contained in chapter 161, Laws of 1988 do not affect a retrospective rating agreement entered into by any employer with the department before July 1, 1988." [ 1988 c 161 s 15.]

Effective dates—1988 c 161 ss 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6: "Section 4 of this act shall take effect on June 30, 1989. Sections 1, 2, 3, and 6 of this act shall take effect on July 1, 1988." [ 1988 c 161 s 17.]

Effective date—1986 c 58 ss 2 and 3: See note following RCW 51.32.080.

Effective dates—Implementation—1982 c 63: See note following RCW 51.32.095.

Legislative intent—1975 1st ex.s. c 179: "The legislative intent of chapter 179, Laws of 1975 1st ex. sess. (2nd SSB No. 2241) was in part to offer surviving spouses of eligible workmen two options upon remarriage; such options to be available to any otherwise eligible surviving spouse regardless of the date of death of the injured workman. Accordingly this 1976 amendatory act is required to clarify that intent." [1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 45 s 1.]

Severability—1973 1st ex.s. c 154: See note following RCW 2.12.030.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Cockle v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 16 P.3d 583 (Wash. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cockle v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 16 P.3d 583 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 4× “[4] By its terms, RCW 51.32.060 sets forth the mechanism for payment of time loss benefits.”

Cockle v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash. 2d 801 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 3× “010; see also RCW 51.32.050. However, it *822 should be noted that both the Department and the dissent propose ejusdem generis criteria vulnerable to the same criticism leveled against the Court of Appeals.”

Mason v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 271 P.3d 381 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 9× “Mary 1 and the Department primarily argue that (1) the legislature intended to provide wage based death benefits to survivors of voluntarily retired workers who die from occupational diseases and (2) because former RCW 51.32.050 (1986) conflicts with RCW 51.”

Kilpatrick v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 915 P.2d 519 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 8× “In 1988, the Legislature amended the statutes relating to the maximum monthly payments available under the Industrial Insurance Act, RCW 51.32.050 and RCW 51.32.060. [1] The amendments increased the monthly benefit from 75 percent to 100 percent of the average worker's salary.”

Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Shirley, 288 P.3d 390 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “Shirley’s death within the meaning of RCW 51.32.050. The Board determined that the alcohol was not a supervening cause: “In order to determine that the alcohol was a supervening cause, we would have to be *885 able to find that the alcohol alone would have caused Mr.”

Deal v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 477 P.2d 175 (Wash. 1970). · cites it 10× “In light of this fact, however, the department concluded that the decedent's two minor children were "orphans" for the purposes of RCW 51.”

Flanigan v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 869 P.2d 14 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “See RCW 51.32.050, .060, .090. [1] Benefits calculated in this manner by their very nature do not provide full compensation for the damages incurred.”

Tobin v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 239 P.3d 544 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 2× “2d 14 (citing RCW 51.32.050,.060, .090). As such, we found the Department did not pay the claimant any benefits for the purpose of compensating for loss of consortium.”

Tobin v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash. 2d 396 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 2× “at 423 (citing RCW 51.32.050, .060, .090). As such, we found the Department did not pay the claimant any benefits for the purpose of compensating for loss of consortium.”

Michael Weaver v. City Of Everett, 421 P.3d 1013 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “13 The Act thus provided a worker with the ability to obtain relief for an initial injury and—in a 12See also RCW 51.32.050 (compensation schedule where injury causes death): RCW 51.”

Pape v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 264 P.2d 241 (Wash. 1953). · cites it 2× “The title to the act is as follows: "An Act relating to industrial insurance; providing workmen's compensation in case of injury or death; and amending sections 51.32.050, 51.32.060, 51.32.090, 51.”

In re the Marriage of Persinger, 355 P.3d 291 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “2d 417 (1993), the wife sought an industrial insurance surviving spouse benefit under RCW 51.32.050(6), claiming because her *611 dissolution decree had been set aside nunc pro tunc after the death of her ex-husband, she was still his spouse and entitled to benefits.”

Show all 41 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.050(2) — 7 cases

Deal v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 477 P.2d 175 (Wash. 1970). “In light of this fact, however, the department concluded that the decedent's two minor children were "orphans" for the purposes of RCW 51.”

Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Freeman, 940 P.2d 304 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

Gassaway v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 571 P.2d 966 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977).

Eyle v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 519 P.2d 1020 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974).

Charles O. Cress (dec'd), Christina Athey, Apps. v. Dept Of Labor & Indus., Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.050(2)(a) — 3 cases

Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Shirley, 288 P.3d 390 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Shirley’s death within the meaning of RCW 51.32.050. The Board determined that the alcohol was not a supervening cause: “In order to determine that the alcohol was a supervening cause, we would have to be *885 able to find that the alcohol alone would have caused Mr.”

Kilpatrick v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 915 P.2d 519 (Wash. 1995). “In 1988, the Legislature amended the statutes relating to the maximum monthly payments available under the Industrial Insurance Act, RCW 51.32.050 and RCW 51.32.060. [1] The amendments increased the monthly benefit from 75 percent to 100 percent of the average worker's salary.”

Charles O. Cress (dec'd), Christina Athey, Apps. v. Dept Of Labor & Indus., Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.050(2)(c) — 1 case

Charles O. Cress (dec'd), Christina Athey, Apps. v. Dept Of Labor & Indus., Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.050(2)(d) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.050(2)(g) — 1 case

Gassaway v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 571 P.2d 966 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.050(2Xd) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.050(3) — 5 cases

Cockle v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 16 P.3d 583 (Wash. 2001). “[4] By its terms, RCW 51.32.060 sets forth the mechanism for payment of time loss benefits.”

Cockle v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash. 2d 801 (Wash. 2001). “010; see also RCW 51.32.050. However, it *822 should be noted that both the Department and the dissent propose ejusdem generis criteria vulnerable to the same criticism leveled against the Court of Appeals.”

Eyle v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 519 P.2d 1020 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974).

Charles O. Cress (dec'd), Christina Athey, Apps. v. Dept Of Labor & Indus., Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.050(4) — 1 case

Charles O. Cress (dec'd), Christina Athey, Apps. v. Dept Of Labor & Indus., Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.050(5) — 1 case

Cockle v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 16 P.3d 583 (Wash. 2001). “[4] By its terms, RCW 51.32.060 sets forth the mechanism for payment of time loss benefits.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.050(6) — 8 cases

Wilson v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 496 P.2d 551 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972).

Clingan v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 860 P.2d 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993).

Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Baker, 786 P.2d 821 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).

Charles O. Cress (dec'd), Christina Athey, Apps. v. Dept Of Labor & Indus., Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.050(7) — 5 cases

Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Freeman, 940 P.2d 304 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

John T. Scott, Dec'd v. Dept. Of L&i, 442 P.3d 28 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Baker, 786 P.2d 821 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).

Aloys R. Wegleitner v. Dept Of L & I (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

House v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 316 P.2d 1094 (Wash. 1957).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.050(b) — 1 case

Arnold v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 912 P.2d 463 (Wash. 1996).

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.