Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 51.48.260 (2026)
Liability of persons unintentionally obtaining erroneous payments
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person, firm, corporation, partnership, association, agency, institution, or other legal entity, but not including an industrially injured recipient of health services, that, without intent to violate this chapter, obtains payments under Title 51 RCW to which such person or entity is not entitled, shall be liable for: (1) Any excess payments received; and (2) interest on the amount of excess payments at the rate of one percent each month for the period from the date upon which payment was made to the date upon which repayment is made to the state.
[ 1986 c 200 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Kantor, 973 P.2d 30 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Kantor, 973 P.2d 30 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “— This case requires us to construe RCW 51.48.260, which allows the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) to recover “any excess payments” it has made to a health care provider.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Allen, 100 Wash. App. 526 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Kantor, Division Two of this court recently considered the question of whether RCW 51.48.260 authorizes the Department to recover “excess” payments where an osteopath had been paid for medical care that DLI later determined was not “proper and necessary.”
Dept. of Labor & Indus. v. Allen, 997 P.2d 977 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Kantor, Division II of this court recently considered the question of whether RCW 51.48.260 authorizes the Department to recover "excess" payments where an osteopath had been paid for medical care that DLI later determined was not "proper and necessary.”
Off. Careers, V State Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “RCW 51.48.260. 1 “‘State fund’ means those funds held by the state or any agency thereof for the purposes of this title.”
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.