Wash. Rev. Code § 51.52.110
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Within thirty days after a decision of the board to deny the petition or petitions for review upon such appeal has been communicated to such worker, beneficiary, employer or other person, or within thirty days after the final decision and order of the board upon such appeal has been communicated to such worker, beneficiary, employer or other person, or within thirty days after the appeal is denied as herein provided, such worker, beneficiary, employer or other person aggrieved by the decision and order of the board may appeal to the superior court. If such worker, beneficiary, employer, or other person fails to file with the superior court its appeal as provided in this section within said thirty days, the decision of the board to deny the petition or petitions for review or the final decision and order of the board shall become final.
In cases involving injured workers, an appeal to the superior court shall be to the superior court of the county of residence of the worker or beneficiary, as shown by the department's records, or to the superior court of the county wherein the injury occurred or where neither the county of residence nor the county wherein the injury occurred are in the state of Washington then the appeal may be directed to the superior court for Thurston county. In all other cases the appeal shall be to the superior court of Thurston county. Such appeal shall be perfected by filing with the clerk of the court a notice of appeal and by serving a copy thereof by mail, or personally, on the director and on the board. If the case is one involving a self-insurer, a copy of the notice of appeal shall also be served by mail, or personally, on such self-insurer. The department shall, in all cases not involving a self-insurer, within twenty days after the receipt of such notice of appeal, serve and file its notice of appearance and such appeal shall thereupon be deemed at issue. If the case is one involving a self-insurer, such self-insurer shall, within twenty days after receipt of such notice of appeal, serve and file its notice of appearance and such appeal shall thereupon be deemed to be at issue. In such cases the department may appear and take part in any proceedings. The board shall serve upon the appealing party, the director, the self-insurer if the case involves a self-insurer, and any other party appearing at the board's proceeding, and file with the clerk of the court before trial, a certified copy of the board's official record which shall include the notice of appeal and other pleadings, testimony and exhibits, and the board's decision and order, which shall become the record in such case. No bond shall be required on appeals to the superior court or on review by the supreme court or the court of appeals, except that an appeal by the employer from a decision and order of the board under *RCW 51.48.070, shall be ineffectual unless, within five days following the service of notice thereof, a bond, with surety satisfactory to the court, shall be filed, conditioned to perform the judgment of the court. Except in the case last named an appeal shall not be a stay: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That whenever the board has made any decision and order reversing an order of the supervisor of industrial insurance on questions of law or mandatory administrative actions of the director, the department shall have the right of appeal to the superior court.
[ 1988 c 202 s 49; 1982 c 109 s 6; 1977 ex.s. c 350 s 80; 1973 c 40 s 1. Prior: 1972 ex.s. c 50 s 1; 1972 ex.s. c 43 s 36; 1971 ex.s. c 289 s 24; 1971 c 81 s 122; 1961 c 23 s 51.52.110; prior: 1957 c 70 s 61; 1951 c 225 s 14; prior: 1949 c 219 s 6, part; 1943 c 280 s 1, part; 1931 c 90 s 1, part; 1929 c 132 s 6, part; 1927 c 310 s 8, part; 1911 c 74 s 20, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 7697, part.]
Notes:
Rules of court: Cf. Title 8 RAP, RAP 18.22.
Severability—1988 c 202: See note following RCW 2.24.050.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 182
cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Dougherty v. DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES
Dougherty v. DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES (2003)
“110's requirements regarding location relate to venue, not jurisdiction. FACTS Daniel L. Dougherty's industrial insurance claim was denied by the Department of Labor and Industries (Department).”
Dougherty v. Department of Labor & Industries (2003)
“We are asked to decide whether RCW 51.52.110’s designation of the proper county for filing workers’ compensation appeals is a grant of jurisdiction, or whether it identifies venue.”
Vasquez v. Department of Labor & Industries (1986)
“On April 10, 1982, Am-Fac employee, Jose Vasquez, injured his ankle at work when a grate covering a gutter collapsed under him, catching his foot. However, Mr.”
Fay v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. (1990)
“The trial court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that Fay failed to serve notice of appeal upon the Director of the Department of Labor and Industries within 30 days of receiving notification of the Board's ruling as required by RCW 51.52.110. The…”
Black v. Dept. of Labor and Industries (1997)
“The question in this case is whether service of notice of appeal on the assistant attorney general assigned to represent the Department of Labor and Industries substantially complies with RCW 51.52.110's requirement that the Department be served through its director.”
Black v. Department of Labor & Industries (1997)
“The question in this case is whether service of notice of appeal on the assistant attorney general assigned to represent the Department of Labor and Industries substantially complies with RCW 51.52.110’s requirement that the Department be served through its director.”
Hanquet v. Department of Labor & Industries (1994)
“[3] Indeed, it is unclear *665 whether Hanquet would have even been entitled to appeal, since RCW 51.52.110 addresses the right of a "worker, beneficiary, employer or other person aggrieved " to appeal a decision of the Board.”
In Re Saltis (1980)
“1039 (1980), Division Three of the Court of Appeals held (in their unpublished opinion) that the Superior Court in that case lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's decision because there was no proof of service of the notice of appeal on the Director of the Department of…”
Krawiec v. Red Dot Corp. (2015)
“The superior court dismissed Krawiec’s appeal based on her failure to timely serve the Board as required under RCW 51.52.110. Krawiec appeals, asserting that the superior court erred by dismissing her appeal from the Board’s order.”
ETCO, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (1992)
“One issue is presented: Is this appeal to the Superior Court governed by the language of RCW 51.52.110, "[i]n all other cases the appeal shall be to the superior court of Thurston county", or by the language of RCW 51.”
Gage v. Boeing Company (1989)
“Gage filed separate appeals in superior court pursuant to RCW 51.52.110. When Boeing failed to respond by filing notices of appearance as required by RCW 51.”
Petta v. Department of Labor & Industries (1992)
“The Department of Labor and Industries appeals the trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment and argues that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on Petta's failure to perfect his appeal in the manner prescribed by RCW 51.52.110. We reverse. On May 8,…”
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.