Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.52
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.52.060 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1)(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this section, a worker, beneficiary, employer, health services provider, or other person aggrieved by an order, decision, or award of the department must, before he or she appeals to the courts, file with the board and the director, by mail or personally, within sixty days from the day on which a copy of the order, decision, or award was communicated to such person, a notice of appeal to the board. However, a health services provider or other person aggrieved by a department order or decision making demand, whether with or without penalty, solely for repayment of sums paid to a provider of medical, dental, vocational, or other health services rendered to an industrially injured worker must, before he or she appeals to the courts, file with the board and the director, by mail or personally, within twenty days from the day on which a copy of the order or decision was communicated to the health services provider upon whom the department order or decision was served, a notice of appeal to the board.
(b) Failure to file a notice of appeal with both the board and the department shall not be grounds for denying the appeal if the notice of appeal is filed with either the board or the department.
(2) Within ten days of the date on which an appeal has been granted by the board, the board shall notify the other interested parties to the appeal of the receipt of the appeal and shall forward a copy of the notice of appeal to the other interested parties. Within twenty days of the receipt of such notice of the board, the worker or the employer may file with the board a cross-appeal from the order of the department from which the original appeal was taken.
(3) If within the time limited for filing a notice of appeal to the board from an order, decision, or award of the department, the department directs the submission of further evidence or the investigation of any further fact, the time for filing the notice of appeal shall not commence to run until the person has been advised in writing of the final decision of the department in the matter. In the event the department directs the submission of further evidence or the investigation of any further fact, as provided in this section, the department shall render a final order, decision, or award within ninety days from the date further submission of evidence or investigation of further fact is ordered which time period may be extended by the department for good cause stated in writing to all interested parties for an additional ninety days.
(4) The department, either within the time limited for appeal, or within thirty days after receiving a notice of appeal, may:
(a) Modify, reverse, or change any order, decision, or award; or
(b)(i) Except as provided in (b)(ii) of this subsection, hold an order, decision, or award in abeyance for a period of ninety days which time period may be extended by the department for good cause stated in writing to all interested parties for an additional ninety days pending further investigation in light of the allegations of the notice of appeal; or
(ii) Hold an order, decision, or award issued under RCW 51.32.160 in abeyance for a period not to exceed ninety days from the date of receipt of an application under RCW 51.32.160. The department may extend the ninety-day time period for an additional sixty days for good cause.
For purposes of this subsection, good cause includes delay that results from conduct of the claimant that is subject to sanction under RCW 51.32.110.
The board shall deny the appeal upon the issuance of an order under (b)(i) or (ii) of this subsection holding an earlier order, decision, or award in abeyance, without prejudice to the appellant's right to appeal from any subsequent determinative order issued by the department.
This subsection (4)(b) does not apply to applications deemed granted under RCW 51.32.160.
(5) An employer shall have the right to appeal an application deemed granted under RCW 51.32.160 on the same basis as any other application adjudicated pursuant to that section.
(6) A provision of this section shall not be deemed to change, alter, or modify the practice or procedure of the department for the payment of awards pending appeal.
[ 1995 c 253 s 1; 1995 c 199 s 7; 1986 c 200 s 11; 1977 ex.s. c 350 s 76; 1975 1st ex.s. c 58 s 2; 1963 c 148 s 1; 1961 c 274 s 8; 1961 c 23 s 51.52.060. Prior: 1957 c 70 s 56; 1951 c 225 s 6; prior: 1949 c 219 ss 1, part, 6, part; 1947 c 246 s 1, part; 1943 c 280 s 1, part; 1931 c 90 s 1, part; 1929 c 132 ss 2, part, 6, part; 1927 c 310 ss 4, part, 8, part; 1923 c 136 s 2, part; 1919 c 134 s 4, part; 1917 c 28 s 1, part; 1913 c 148 s 1, part; 1911 c 74 ss 5, part, 20, part; Rem Supp. 1949 ss 7679, part, 7697, part.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: This section was amended by 1995 c 199 s 7 and by 1995 c 253 s 1, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section pursuant to RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).
Severability—1995 c 199: See note following RCW 51.12.120.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1952–2025 · leading case: Tollycraft Yachts Corp. v. McCoy, 858 P.2d 503 (Wash. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tollycraft Yachts Corp. v. McCoy, 858 P.2d 503 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 16× “RCW 51.52.060 states, in part: That the department, either within the time limited for appeal, or within thirty days after receiving a notice of appeal, may modify, reverse or change any order, decision, or award, or may hold any such order, decision, or award in abeyance for a…”
Shafer v. Dep't, 213 P.3d 591 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 6× “within sixty days from the day on which a copy of the order, decision or award was communicated to such person, a notice of appeal to the board.”
Shafer v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 166 Wash. 2d 710 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 6× “The appeal procedure is further explained by another provision that is central to this case, RCW 51.52.060(1)(a). It says that a worker, beneficiary, employer, health services provider, or other person aggrieved by an order, decision, or award [must] file with the board .”
Rodriguez v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 540 P.2d 1359 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 9× “After hearing, the board determined the appeal was untimely because it was not filed within 60 days from the day the closing order was communicated to appellant as required by RCW 51.52.060. Appellant appealéd to superior court.”
Vasquez v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 722 P.2d 854 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “If the 30-day period commences when the Board mailed the notice, *382 then the latest Mr.”
Ferencak v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 175 P.3d 1109 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “" [35] RCW 51.52.060 governs the procedure for appealing the Department's decisions and requires a worker seeking review of a Department decision to file a notice of appeal within 60 days of receiving a copy of the decision.”
KUSTURA v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 175 P.3d 1117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “" [5] ¶ 21 RCW 51.52.060(1) establishes appellate jurisdiction of Department orders.”
Leuluaialii v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 279 P.3d 515 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “within sixty days from the day on which a copy of the order, decision, or award was communicated to such person, a notice of appeal to the board.” RCW 51.52.060(l)(a).”
Mestrovac v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. of State, 176 P.3d 536 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Mestrovac contends that the Department's repeated use of English-only communications with its knowledge of his LEP status amounts to an appealable decision within the meaning of RCW 51.52.060, despite the absence of a written decision from the Department addressing this…”
Arriaga v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 335 P.3d 977 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 9× “Mr. Arriaga contends that the word “communicated” denotes actual possession and availability, and that because Dr.”
Lynn v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 130 Wash. App. 829 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 51.52.060(1)(a). See Marley, 125 Wn.2d at 538 (“failure to appeal an order, even one containing a clear error of law, turns the order into a final adjudication, precluding any reargument of the same claim”).”
Singletary v. Manor Healthcare Corp., 271 P.3d 356 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “¶21 RCW 51.52.060 delineates the appeals process before the Board.”
Show all 76 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.52.060(1) — 3 cases
KUSTURA v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 175 P.3d 1117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “" [5] ¶ 21 RCW 51.52.060(1) establishes appellate jurisdiction of Department orders.”
Kustura v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash. App. 655 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
Aloys R. Wegleitner v. Dept Of L & I (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.52.060(1)(a) — 17 cases
Shafer v. Dep't, 213 P.3d 591 (Wash. 2009). “within sixty days from the day on which a copy of the order, decision or award was communicated to such person, a notice of appeal to the board.”
Shafer v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 166 Wash. 2d 710 (Wash. 2009). “The appeal procedure is further explained by another provision that is central to this case, RCW 51.52.060(1)(a). It says that a worker, beneficiary, employer, health services provider, or other person aggrieved by an order, decision, or award [must] file with the board .”
Lynn v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 130 Wash. App. 829 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 51.52.060(1)(a). See Marley, 125 Wn.2d at 538 (“failure to appeal an order, even one containing a clear error of law, turns the order into a final adjudication, precluding any reargument of the same claim”).”
Chavez v. L&I, 118 P.3d 392 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
Pearson v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 262 P.3d 837 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.52.060(3) — 1 case
Gerald R. Long, V Autozone (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.52.060(4) — 2 cases
Birrueta v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 379 P.3d 120 (Wash. 2016).
Birrueta v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. (Wash. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.52.060(4)(a) — 3 cases
Dirk E. Christiansen, V. Wa Dept Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
Raymond F. Mercier Jr., V. State Of Washington Dept. Of L & I (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Raymond F. Mercier Jr., V. State Of Washington Dept. Of L & I (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.52.060(4)(b) — 1 case
Dirk E. Christiansen, V. Wa Dept Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.52.060(4)(b)(i) — 1 case
Dirk E. Christiansen, V. Wa Dept Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.52.060(l)(a) — 6 cases
Leuluaialii v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 279 P.3d 515 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “within sixty days from the day on which a copy of the order, decision, or award was communicated to such person, a notice of appeal to the board.” RCW 51.52.060(l)(a).”
Fields Corp. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 45 P.3d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
Chavez v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 129 Wash. App. 236 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
Pearson v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 262 P.3d 837 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Hyatt v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 132 P.3d 148 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
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.