Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.48

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.48.131

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A notice of assessment becomes final thirty days from the date the notice of assessment was served upon the employer unless: (1) A written request for reconsideration is filed with the department of labor and industries, or (2) an appeal is filed with the board of industrial insurance appeals and sent to the director of labor and industries by mail or delivered in person. The appeal shall not be denied solely on the basis that it was not filed with both the board and the director if it was filed with either the board or the director. The appeal shall set forth with particularity the reason for the employer's appeal and the amounts, if any, that the employer admits are due.
The department, within thirty days after receiving a notice of appeal, may modify, reverse, or change any notice of assessment, or may hold any such notice of assessment in abeyance pending further investigation, and the board shall thereupon deny the appeal, without prejudice to the employer's right to appeal from any subsequent determinative notice of assessment issued by the department.
The burden of proof rests upon the employer in an appeal to prove that the taxes and penalties assessed upon the employer in the notice of assessment are incorrect. The department shall promptly transmit its original record, or a legible copy thereof, produced by mechanical, photographic, or electronic means, in such matter to the board. RCW 51.52.080 through 51.52.106 govern appeals under this section. Further appeals taken from a final decision of the board under this section are governed by the provisions relating to judicial review of administrative decisions contained in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, and the department has the same right of review from the board's decisions as do employers.
[ 1989 c 175 s 120; 1987 c 316 s 3; 1985 c 315 s 7.]

Notes:

Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: ETCO, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
ETCO, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (1992) washctapp · cites it 16× “110, "[i]n all other cases the appeal shall be to the superior court of Thurston county", or by the language of RCW 51.48.131 which provides that employers' appeals are governed by the *304 procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), RCW 34.”
Continental Sports Corporation v. Dept. of Labor & Industries (1996) wash · cites it 11× “must be made within thirty days of the date of service by filing an appeal with the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals and sending a copy of said appeal to the Director of the Department of Labor and Industries, by mail or personal delivery, pursuant to RCW 51.48.131.” Notice…”
Department of Labor & Industries v. Lyons Enterprises, Inc. (2016) wash · cites it 2× “Because we find the IIA is applicable to franchises, we next address whether Lyons’ franchisees meet the definition of “worker” and whether they may be subject to exception under our holding in White or under RCW 51.08.195. 1 ¶20 We review appeals stemming from the Board’s…”
B&R Sales, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2015) washctapp · cites it 4× “RCW 51.48.131, which is entitled “Notice of assessment for default in payments by employer —Appeal” provides: Further appeals taken from a final decision of the board under this section are governed by the provisions relating to judicial review of administrative decisions…”
Probst v. Department of Labor & Industries (2010) washctapp · cites it 5× “In the *915 alternative, the superior court held that substantial evidence supported the BIIA’s findings and its legal conclusions were not erroneous. ANALYSIS Standard of Review ¶15 The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), ch.”
R & G Probst v. Dept. of Labor & Industries (2004) washctapp · cites it 2× “It also argues that after BIIA found that during the period of audit, "Gary Probst, David Sedelmeier, and Murray Taylor were general partners and exempt from industrial insurance coverage," it erred in not remanding for an assessment recalculation deleting the partners.”
R&G Probst v. Department of Labor & Industries (2004) washctapp · cites it 2× “It also argues that after BILA found that during the period of audit, “Gary Probst, David Sedelmeier, and Murray Taylor were general partners and exempt from industrial insurance coverage,” it erred in not remanding for an assessment recalculation deleting the partners.”
Henry Industries, Inc. v. Department Of Labor & Industries (2016) washctapp · cites it 2× “5 RCW 51.48.131; B&R Sales, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus.”
Department of Labor & Industries v. Lyons Enterprises, Inc. (2015) washctapp · cites it 2× “180 is properly read to mean that all franchisees of Lyons are “workers” except for those franchisees who have subordinates of their own.”
Jamison v. Department of Labor & Industries (1992) washctapp · cites it 2× “Pursuant to RCW 51.48.131, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs appeals of this type at the superior court and appellate court level.”
Black v. Dept. of Labor and Industries (1997) wash “2d 1284 (1996) (sending notice of appeal by Federal Express substantially complies with RCW 51.48.131 requirement that notice be sent by U.”
Black v. Department of Labor & Industries (1997) wash “2d 1284 (1996) (sending notice of appeal by Federal Express substantially complies with RCW 51.48.131 requirement that notice be sent by U.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
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.