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

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.52.106 (2026)

Review of decision and order

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
After the filing of a petition or petitions for review as provided for in RCW 51.52.104, the proposed decision and order of the industrial appeals judge, petition or petitions for review and, in its discretion, the record or any part thereof, may be considered by the board and on agreement of at least two of the regular members thereof, the board may, within twenty days after the receipt of such petition or petitions, decline to review the proposed decision and order and thereupon deny the petition or petitions. In such event all parties shall forthwith be notified in writing of said denial: PROVIDED, That if a petition for review is not denied within said twenty days it shall be deemed to have been granted. If the petition for review is granted, the proposed decision and order, the petition or petitions for review and the record or any part thereof deemed necessary shall be considered by a panel of at least two of the members of the board, on which not more than one industry and one labor member serve. The chair may be a member of any panel. The decision and order of any such panel shall be the decision and order of the board. Every final decision and order rendered by the board shall be in writing and shall contain findings and conclusions as to each contested issue of fact and law, as well as the board's order based thereon. The board shall, in all cases, render a final decision and order within one hundred and eighty days from the date a petition for review is filed. A copy of the decision and order, including the findings and conclusions, shall be mailed to each party to the appeal and to his or her attorney of record.
[ 2010 c 8 s 14014; 1982 c 109 s 9; 1975 1st ex.s. c 58 s 4; 1971 ex.s. c 289 s 23; 1965 ex.s. c 165 s 4; 1963 c 148 s 7; 1961 c 23 s 51.52.106. Prior: 1951 c 225 s 13.]

Notes:

Effective dates—Severability—1971 ex.s. c 289: See RCW 51.98.060 and 51.98.070.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1957–2023 · leading case: Washington Cedar & Supply Co. v. Dep't of Labor, 83 P.3d 1012 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Washington Cedar & Supply Co. v. Dep't of Labor, 83 P.3d 1012 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “This provision incorporates the controlling procedures for Board review under RCW 51.52.106. RCW 51.52.106 allows Board review “by a panel of at least two of the members of the board .”
Ravsten v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 736 P.2d 265 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 2× “RCW 51.52.106. The total amount of attorney's fees to be paid by the State and by the claimant shall be subject to final approval by the court.”
Harrison Mem'l Hosp. v. Gagnon, 110 Wash. App. 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “See RCW 51.52.106. See RCW 51.52.110. See RCW 51.”
Gaines v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 463 P.2d 269 (Wash. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff appealed to the industrial insurance board for a de novo hearing (RCW 51.52.106, as amended). Plaintiff then appealed to the superior court below (RCW 51.”
Black v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 933 P.2d 1025 (Wash. 1997). “Black relies on RCW 51.52.106 which states the Board "shall, in all cases, render a final decision .”
Black v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 131 Wash. 2d 547 (Wash. 1997). “Black relies on RCW 51.52.106 which states the Board "shall, in all cases, render a final decision .”
Leuluaialii v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 279 P.3d 515 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “¶9 Leuluaialii petitioned the Board to review the industrial appeals judge’s proposed decision and order under RCW 51.52.106. While Leuluaialii’s petition was pending, she moved to dismiss, arguing that the Department did not communicate the closing order to her attending…”
Stratton v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 459 P.2d 651 (Wash. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2× “The Board’s order was accompanied by findings and conclusion as required by RCW 51.52.106. Mr. Stratton appealed to the superior court.”
Homemakers Upjohn v. Russell, 658 P.2d 27 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “RCW 51.52.106 then gives the Board discretion to either deny or grant the petition.”
Harder Mech., Inc. v. Patrick Tierney, 384 P.3d 241 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 51.52.106. ¶8 Harder appealed the Board’s decision to superior court.”
Magee v. Rite Aid, 277 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “The appealing party “shall be deemed to have waived all objections or irregularities not specifically set forth” in the petition for review to the Board. RCW 51.52.104. ¶30 The Board has the authority to review the record, enter findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each…”
Harrison Mem'l Hosp. v. Gagnon, 40 P.3d 1221 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “[21] Admin. R. (Caulkins) at 55. [22] Admin. R. (Yee) at 21-23.”
Show all 30 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.