Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.52

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.52.104

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
After all evidence has been presented at hearings conducted by an industrial appeals judge, who shall be an active or judicial member of the Washington state bar association, the industrial appeals judge shall enter a proposed or recommended decision and order which shall be in writing and shall contain findings and conclusions as to each contested issue of fact and law, as well as the order based thereon. The industrial appeals judge shall file the signed original of the proposed decision and order with the board, and copies thereof shall be mailed by the board to each party to the appeal and to each party's attorney or representative of record. Within twenty days, or such further time as the board may allow on written application of a party, filed within said twenty days from the date of communication of the proposed decision and order to the parties or their attorneys or representatives of record, any party may file with the board a written petition for review of the same. Filing of a petition for review is perfected by mailing or personally delivering the petition to the board's offices in Olympia. Such petition for review shall set forth in detail the grounds therefor and the party or parties filing the same shall be deemed to have waived all objections or irregularities not specifically set forth therein.
In the event no petition for review is filed as provided herein by any party, the proposed decision and order of the industrial appeals judge shall be adopted by the board and become the decision and order of the board, and no appeal may be taken therefrom to the courts. If an order adopting the proposed decision and order is not formally signed by the board on the day following the date the petition for review of the proposed decision and order is due, said proposed decision and order shall be deemed adopted by the board and become the decision and order of the board, and no appeal may be taken therefrom to the courts.
[ 2003 c 224 s 2; 1985 c 314 s 1; 1982 c 109 s 5; 1971 ex.s. c 289 s 22; 1963 c 148 s 6.]

Notes:

Effective dates—Severability—1971 ex.s. c 289: See RCW 51.98.060 and 51.98.070.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Homemakers Upjohn v. Russell
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Homemakers Upjohn v. Russell (1983) washctapp · cites it 10× “However, Russell then persuaded the court that RCW 51.52.104, .106, and .110 allowed the right of appeal only to those parties who actually petitioned for review and that the court had no jurisdiction because of plaintiff's failure to so petition.”
Wells v. Olsten Corp. (2001) washctapp · cites it 4× “RCW 51.52.104. On April 29, Wells moved to vacate the Board's final order, characterizing her motion as falling under either CR 60 or CR 59(a)(1), (3), (7), or (9).”
Corona v. Boeing Co. (2002) washctapp · cites it 7× “*5 DISCUSSION The superior court found two bases for its conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction: Corona’s failure to file his petition for review with the Board within the time allowed by the Board as required by RCW 51.52.104 and Corona’s failure to serve Boeing,…”
Allan v. Department of Labor & Industries (1992) washctapp · cites it 3× “Notwithstanding the merits of her position, Allan waived this objection because it was not set out in her petition for review of the ruling of the industrial insurance appeals judge as required by RCW 51.”
Department of Labor & Industries v. Tacoma Yellow Cab Co. (1982) washctapp · cites it 20× “Following hearings, a hearing examiner employed by the board prepared and executed a document dated April 6, 1978 entitled Proposed Decision and Order which bears on its face a board stamp indicating copies were mailed on April 10, 1978 to the two employers, their counsel, and…”
Department of Labor & Industries v. Moser (1983) washctapp · cites it 4× “Although the decision was mainly favorable to Moser, he petitioned for review because, he says, he disagreed with some of the examiner's findings and conclusions and wanted to preserve his right to challenge them in the event the Department were to file a petition for review…”
KUSTURA v. Department of Labor and Industries (2008) washctapp · cites it 2× “5(a); RCW 51.52.104 (providing that a petition for review of a Department order "shall set forth in detail the grounds therefor and the party or parties filing the same shall be deemed to have waived all objections or irregularities not specifically set forth therein.”
Hill v. Department of Labor & Industries (1978) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 51.52.104 provides, in pertinent part: Such petition for review shall set forth in detail the grounds therefor and the party or parties filing the same shall be deemed to have waived all objections or irregularities not specifically set forth therein.”
B&J Roofing, Inc. v. Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (1992) washctapp · cites it 6× “B&J contends that the Board had jurisdiction to reconsider its decision under RCW 51.52.104 and that refusal to do so was arbitrary and capricious.”
Harrison Memorial Hospital v. Gagnon (2002) washctapp “See RCW 51.52.104. See RCW 51.52.106. See RCW 51.”
Hanquet v. Department of Labor & Industries (1994) washctapp · cites it 2× “In its written decision, the Board stated that Hanquet had to establish that his injury occurred while "he was a worker engaged in covered employment".”
Magee v. Rite Aid (2012) washctapp · cites it 3× “RCW 51.52.104. A party can file a petition for review of the proposed order and decision to the Board.”
Show all 69 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.