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

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.52.102 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
At the time and place fixed for hearing each party shall present all his or her evidence with respect to the issues raised in the notice of appeal, and if any party fails so to do, the board may determine the issues upon such evidence as may be presented to it at said hearing, or if an appealing party who has the burden of going forward with the evidence fails to present any evidence, the board may dismiss the appeal: PROVIDED, That for good cause shown in the record to prevent hardship, the board may grant continuances upon application of any party, but such continuances, when granted, shall be to a time and place certain within the county where the initial hearing was held unless it shall appear that a continuance elsewhere is required in justice to interested parties: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That the board may continue hearings on its own motion to secure in an impartial manner such evidence, in addition to that presented by the parties, as the board, in its opinion, deems necessary to decide the appeal fairly and equitably, but such additional evidence shall be received subject to any objection as to its admissibility, and, if admitted in evidence all parties shall be given full opportunity for cross-examination and to present rebuttal evidence.
[ 2010 c 8 s 14013; 1963 c 148 s 5; 1961 c 23 s 51.52.102. Prior: 1951 c 225 s 12.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1956–2021 · leading case: Jepson v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 573 P.2d 10 (Wash. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jepson v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 573 P.2d 10 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 2× “Department of Labor & Indus., 59 Wn.2d 772 , 370 P.2d 582 (1962).”
Harrison Mem'l Hosp. v. Gagnon, 110 Wash. App. 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “See RCW 51.52.102, .104; Admin. R. at 75-85. See RCW 51.”
Somsak v. Criton Tech., 52 P.3d 43 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “]" WAC 263-12-115(2)(a); see RCW 51.52.102. The party appealing findings and decision from the Board has the burden to produce sufficient substantial facts in support of his or her case.”
Somsak v. Criton Tech./Heath Tecna, Inc., 113 Wash. App. 84 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “” WAC 263-12-115(2)(a); see RCW 51.52.102. The party appealing findings and decision from the Board has the burden to produce sufficient substantial facts in support of his or her case.”
Watt v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 573 P.2d 1320 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 6× “Weyerhaeuser contends that under the provisions of the workmen's compensation act, in particular RCW 51.52.102, the Board had the statutory authority to dismiss Mr.”
Sepich v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 450 P.2d 940 (Wash. 1969). “' See RCW 51.52.102. The testimony is transcribed and filed in the record’on appeal.”
Jussila v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 370 P.2d 582 (Wash. 1962). “RCW 51.52.102 provides, in part: “At the time and place fixed for hearing each party shall present all his evidence with respect to the issues raised in the notice of appeal, and if any party fails so to do, the board may determine the issues upon such evidence as may be…”
Brakus v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 292 P.2d 865 (Wash. 1956). “For the determination of those issues, the board is given broad powers, including the power to secure such evidence in addition to that presented by the parties as it “.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Bd. of Indus. Ins. Appeals, 347 P.3d 63 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “See RCW 51.52.102 (“[T]he board may continue hearings on its own motion to secure in an impartial manner such evidence, in addition to that presented by the parties, as the board, in its opinion, deems necessary to decide the appeal fairly and equitably.”
Lyle v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 304 P.2d 668 (Wash. 1956). “100 provides that the hearing before the board shall be de novo; and, furthermore, RCW 51.52.102, in part,, provides as follows: “That the board may continue hearings on its own motion to secure in an impartial manner such evidence, in addition to that presented by the parties…”
Terry Longland v. William Scotsman & Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “34 RCW 51.52.102 allows for a continuance of fact-finding hearings only to “a time and place certain.”
Robert Daniel Cotton, Jr (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2021). “RCW 51.52.102; RCW 51.52.095. After evidence has been presented at the 1 hearing, the industrial appeals judge then enters a proposed decision and order in writing 2 containing findings and conclusions on each contested issue.”
Show all 14 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.