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

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.52.115 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Upon appeals to the superior court only such issues of law or fact may be raised as were properly included in the notice of appeal to the board, or in the complete record of the proceedings before the board. The hearing in the superior court shall be de novo, but the court shall not receive evidence or testimony other than, or in addition to, that offered before the board or included in the record filed by the board in the superior court as provided in RCW 51.52.110: PROVIDED, That in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the board, not shown in said record, testimony thereon may be taken in the superior court. The proceedings in every such appeal shall be informal and summary, but full opportunity to be heard shall be had before judgment is pronounced. In all court proceedings under or pursuant to this title the findings and decision of the board shall be prima facie correct and the burden of proof shall be upon the party attacking the same. If the court shall determine that the board has acted within its power and has correctly construed the law and found the facts, the decision of the board shall be confirmed; otherwise, it shall be reversed or modified. In case of a modification or reversal the superior court shall refer the same to the department with an order directing it to proceed in accordance with the findings of the court: PROVIDED, That any award shall be in accordance with the schedule of compensation set forth in this title. In appeals to the superior court hereunder, either party shall be entitled to a trial by jury upon demand, and the jury's verdict shall have the same force and effect as in actions at law. Where the court submits a case to the jury, the court shall by instruction advise the jury of the exact findings of the board on each material issue before the court.
[ 1961 c 23 s 51.52.115. Prior: 1957 c 70 s 62; 1951 c 225 s 15; prior: (i) 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. (ii) 1949 c 219 s 6; 1939 c 184 s 1; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 7697-2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 285 cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: Spivey v. City of Bellevue, 389 P.3d 504 (Wash. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Spivey v. City of Bellevue, 389 P.3d 504 (Wash. 2017). · cites it 13× “¶24 Another IIA provision, RCW 51.52.115, addresses the applicable burden of proof when a board decision is appealed to superior court.”
Harrison Mem'l Hosp. v. Gagnon, 110 Wash. App. 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “Under RCW 51.52.115, that burden rests on whoever is attacking the findings and decision of the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals.”
Rogers v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 151 Wash. App. 174 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “If the court shall determine that the board has acted within its power and has correctly construed the law and found the facts, the decision of the board shall be confirmed; otherwise, it shall be reversed or modified.”
Rogers v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 210 P.3d 355 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “RCW 51.52.115. Thus, the superior court (or the jury, [5] where one is empanelled) applies the standards set forth in RCW 51.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Rowley, 378 P.3d 139 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 5× “050(2)(a) does not comport with cases interpreting *207 RCW 51.52.115, the statute that governs IIA appeals from the Board to the superior court.”
Hanquet v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 879 P.2d 326 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 10× “Upon appeals to the superior court only such issues of law or fact may be raised as were properly included in the notice of appeal to the board, or in the complete record of the proceedings before the board.”
Gorre v. City of Tacoma, 324 P.3d 716 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 9× “The City filed a motion to strike these exhibits and Gorre’s reference to Simmons’ testimony, arguing that the superior court should prohibit Gorre from offering new exhibits and inadmissible testimony under RCW 51.52.115. 23 Gorre responded that (1) he had already submitted the…”
City of Bellevue v. Raum, 286 P.3d 695 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to RCW 51.52.115, the entire Board record was read to the jury except for testimony the superior court ordered stricken.”
Butson v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 354 P.3d 924 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “*298 ¶22 Butson cites RCW 51.52.115 and Fay v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.”
Cantu v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 168 Wash. App. 14 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “RCW 51.52.115; Gallo v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus.”
Jepson v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 573 P.2d 10 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 4× “While the record clearly indicates that respondent was paid a salary, the record is silent as to whether the director received notice that respondent was being carried on the payroll.”
Bennerstrom v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 86 P.3d 826 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “110 and RCW 51.52.115 govern judicial review of matters arising under the Industrial Insurance Act.”
Show all 285 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.