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

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.48.120 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If any employer should default in any payment due to the state fund the director or the director's designee may issue a notice of assessment certifying the amount due, which notice shall be served upon the employer by mailing such notice to the employer by a method for which receipt can be confirmed or tracked to the employer's last known address or served in the manner prescribed for the service of a summons in a civil action. Such notice shall contain the information that an appeal must be filed with the board of industrial insurance appeals and the director by mail or personally within thirty days of the date of service of the notice of assessment in order to appeal the assessment unless a written request for reconsideration is filed with the department of labor and industries.
[ 2011 c 290 s 7; 1995 c 160 s 5; 1986 c 9 s 10; 1985 c 315 s 6; 1972 ex.s. c 43 s 32.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Jamison v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 827 P.2d 1085 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jamison v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 827 P.2d 1085 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “1 *128 Validity of Assessments Jamison contends that the notices and orders of assess-, ment were improperly issued because the Department failed to comply with RCW 51.48.120 which provides, in part: If any employer should default in any payment due to the state fund the…”
Dolman v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 716 P.2d 852 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 2× “On May 24, 1982, the Department issued, pursuant to RCW 51.48.120, a notice and order of assessment declaring due premiums and penalties in the amount of $9,528.”
Floor Decorators, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 44 Wash. App. 503 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 5× “Both companies assert that the cases are governed by RCW 51.48.120 and RCW 51.48-.130. RCW 51.”
Labor & Indus. v. Kennewick, 661 P.2d 133 (Wash. 1983). “Civil penalties may be recovered in a civil action in the name of the department brought in the superior court of the county where the violation is alleged to have occurred, or the department may utilize the procedures for collection of civil penalties as set forth in RCW…”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Metro Hauling Inc., 738 P.2d 1063 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals does not have jurisdiction to review the correctness of any amounts due and payable to a State fund by an employer under the provisions of RCW 51.48.120; Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Director of the Department of Labor and…”
Ralph K. Simmons, V. Dept Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 18× “Simmons argues that RCW 51.48.120 requires actual receipt of a notice of assessment (“NOA”) underlying a tax warrant.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. City of Kennewick, 99 Wash. 2d 225 (Wash. 1983). “Civil penalties may be recovered in a civil action in the name of the department brought in the superior court of the county where the violation is alleged to have occurred, or the department may utilize the procedures for collection of civil penalties as set forth in RCW…”
Steven G. Hopkins v. Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 7× “RCW 51.48.120. The statute has been amended since 2010.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. City of Kennewick, 644 P.2d 1196 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “RCW 51.48.120 and .130 provide a procedure for notice and review in the case of "default in any payment.”
Chris Jones & Katrina Jones, V. Dept. Of L&i (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “RCW 51.48.120. An employer may appeal this assessment to the Board, and, once administrative remedies are exhausted, the employer may appeal to the superior court.”
Oma Constr., Inc., V. Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “” RCW 51.48.120. “Under the APA, a plaintiff has the burden to show that an agency acted outside statutorily-granted authority or that an agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.”
Oma Constr., Inc., V. Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “” RCW 51.48.120. “Under the APA, a plaintiff has the burden to show that an agency acted outside statutorily-granted authority or that an agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.”
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.