Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 51.48.040 (2026)
Inspection of employer's records
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The books, records and payrolls of the employer pertinent to the administration of this title shall always be open to inspection by the department or its traveling auditor, agent or assistant, for the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of the payroll, the persons employed, and such other information as may be necessary for the department and its management under this title.
(2) Refusal on the part of the employer to submit his or her books, records and payrolls for such inspection to the department, or any assistant presenting written authority from the director, shall subject the offending employer to a penalty determined by the director but not to exceed five hundred dollars for each offense and the individual who personally gives such refusal is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(3) Any employer who fails to allow adequate inspection in accordance with the requirements of this section is subject to having its certificate of coverage revoked by order of the department and is forever barred from questioning in any proceeding in front of the board of industrial insurance appeals or any court, the correctness of any assessment by the department based on any period for which such records have not been produced for inspection.
[ 2020 c 277 s 4; 2003 c 53 s 282; 1986 c 9 s 9; 1985 c 347 s 5; 1961 c 23 s 51.48.040. Prior: 1911 c 74 s 15, part; RRS s 7690, part.]
Notes:
Effective date—2020 c 277 ss 1-7: See note following RCW 51.48.010.
Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1987–2010 · leading case: R & G Probst v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 88 P.3d 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
R & G Probst v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 88 P.3d 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “It also found that, although the law exempted Probst, Sedelmeier, and Taylor as partners, the IAJ should not have ordered an assessment recalculation because RCW 51.48.040 barred Diamond from contesting the initial assessment for failing to produce documents on L & I's request…”
R&G Probst v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 121 Wash. App. 288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “It also found that, although the law exempted Probst, Sedelmeier, and Taylor as partners, the IAJ should not have ordered an assessment recalculation because RCW 51.48.040 barred Diamond from contesting the initial assessment for failing to produce documents on L&I’s request and…”
Probst v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 155 Wash. App. 908 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 51.48.040; see Probst I, 121 Wn. App.”
Probst v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 230 P.3d 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Once the initial review is completed, a supervisor reviews the records and sends the case to L & I's collections department to send the employer a notice and order of assessment if there is a debit balance at the end of the audit. [8] In addition, Probst admittedly failed to…”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Metro Hauling Inc., 738 P.2d 1063 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “The order and notice stated in part: Audit of the employers books, records, and payrolls performed pursuant to RCW 51.48.040 discloses additional premium due in the amount of $24,173.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.48.040(3) — 2 cases
Probst v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 155 Wash. App. 908 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 51.48.040; see Probst I, 121 Wn. App.”
Probst v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 230 P.3d 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Once the initial review is completed, a supervisor reviews the records and sends the case to L & I's collections department to send the employer a notice and order of assessment if there is a debit balance at the end of the audit. [8] In addition, Probst admittedly failed to…”
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.