Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.48
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.48.030 (2026)

Failure to keep records and make reports

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Every employer who fails to keep and preserve the records required by this title or fails to make the reports provided in this title shall be subject to a penalty determined by the director but not to exceed five hundred dollars or two hundred percent of the quarterly tax for each such offense, whichever is greater. Any employer who fails to keep and preserve the records adequate to determine taxes due shall be forever barred from questioning, in an appeal before the board of industrial insurance appeals or the courts, the correctness of any assessment by the department based on any period for which such records have not been kept and preserved.
(2) The department may waive penalties for first-time or de minimis violations of this section. Any penalty that is waived under this section may be reinstated and imposed in addition to any additional penalties associated with a subsequent violation or failure within a year to correct the previous violation as required by the department.
[ 2020 c 277 s 3; 1986 c 9 s 8; 1985 c 347 s 4; 1982 c 63 s 21; 1971 ex.s. c 289 s 64; 1961 c 23 s 51.48.030. Prior: 1947 c 247 s 1(4d), part; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 7676d, part.]

Notes:

Effective date—2020 c 277 ss 1-7: See note following RCW 51.48.010.
Effective dates—Implementation—1982 c 63: See note following RCW 51.32.095.
Effective dates—Severability—1971 ex.s. c 289: See RCW 51.98.060 and 51.98.070.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · leading case: R & G Probst v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 88 P.3d 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
R & G Probst v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 88 P.3d 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Nevertheless, Diamond's cooperation consisted of producing only one blank and one signed independent contractor agreement.”
R&G Probst v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 121 Wash. App. 288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Nevertheless, Diamond’s cooperation consisted of producing only one blank and one signed independent contractor agreement.”
Delivery Express, Inc. v. Wash. State Dep't of Labor & Indus., 442 P.3d 637 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “The Department imposed a penalty of $ 127,500 for failing to maintain adequate records under RCW 51.48.030 and a penalty of $ 50,000 for "knowingly and intentionally evad[ing] paying workmen's compensation insurance.”
Ralph K. Simmons, V. Dept Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “035; RCW 51.48.030, .040, .120. A. Service Under RCW 51.”
Oma Constr., Inc., V. Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “035; RCW 51.48.030). The IIA granted the Department broad discretion to create a “rating system” for classifying occupations and industries based on their degrees of hazard and to fix corresponding industrial insurance premium rates.”
Oma Constr., Inc., V. Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “035; RCW 51.48.030). The IIA granted the Department broad discretion to create a “rating system” for classifying occupations and industries based on their degrees of hazard and to fix corresponding industrial insurance premium rates.”
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.