• Search significant decisions
• Significant decisions case name index
• Significant decisions subject index
• Tentative significant decisions
• Decision & orders
• Settlement orders
• Rule-making

All dockets are in Adobe Acrobat/PDF format

January 2025

WISHA - Successor Liability
For the first time, the Board specifically adopted the federal "substantial continuity" test when looking at whether a cited successor employer can have citations from the predecessor employer considered for purposes of determining whether a repeat violation has occurred.
In re Genesis Framing Construction, Inc., Dckt. No. 22 W0206 (January 16, 2025)

February 2025

Protest to Department Order
The employer's protests to 14 TLC orders did not act as a protest to a wage order issued around the same time. The employer's protests never indicated the employer was disagreeing with the wage information, nor did the employer list the date of the wage order as the date of the orders being protested. The wage order became final and binding because it was not timely protested or appealed by either the employer or the worker.
In re David Gheorghita, Dckt. No. 24 12743 (February 3, 2025)

March 2025

Wage Calculation and Change in Circumstances
The worker is entitled to a wage adjustment under RCW 51.28.040. The employer provided the worker with housing on the date of his injury but terminated his housing almost a year later. Losing in-kind compensation like housing during a period of disability constitutes a change of circumstances allowing a worker to request a wage adjustment under RCW 51.28.040.4. Res judicata does not prevent a worker from receiving an adjusted wage rate under RCW 51.28.040 because here, at the time the order was issued, the worker was not entitled to include his housing benefits. This differs from cases where a worker failed to protest or appeal a wage order excluding benefits they were entitled to at the time the order was issued, or where the worker lost employer-provided benefits prior to the date of a final wage order. The finality of the wage order isn't relevant.
In re Dean S. Paculba, Dckt. No. 23 19209 (March 19, 2025) [dissent]