Alonso Veliz v. Department of Labor & Industries
33303-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 11, 2017Background
- Alonso Veliz, a monolingual Spanish speaker, reported on his industrial accident form that he was "married with three children," and a final Department of Labor & Industries (DLI) order fixed his wage and time-loss benefits on that basis.
- Years later, when Veliz was placed on a permanent total disability pension and provided additional documentation, he admitted he was not legally married at the time of injury; DLI changed his status to "single" and reduced benefits.
- Veliz appealed; the case was stayed pending the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Birrueta v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., which addressed RCW 51.32.240(1) (recovery of overpayments based on errors or misrepresentations).
- The Supreme Court in Birrueta held DLI may correct final orders based on "innocent misrepresentation" per RCW 51.32.240(1)(a), reversing the court of appeals’ contrary reading.
- The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals’ finding that Veliz admitted he was not married at the time of injury was unchallenged; the majority held his initial report was an innocent misrepresentation and substantial evidence supported the adjudicator’s order.
- The majority affirmed the Department’s change and denied Veliz attorney fees on appeal; Judge Fearing dissented, arguing statutory ambiguity about "marriage" and urging recognition of good-faith marital belief or remand to investigate foreign-law (Mexican) concubinage/common-law equivalency.
Issues
| Issue | Veliz's Argument | DLI's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DLI may correct a final order and recover/reduce benefits when a worker innocently misrepresents marital status | Veliz: he and his partner reasonably considered themselves married (cultural/foreign practice); his answers were truthful as understood by him | DLI: RCW 51.32.240(1)(a) authorizes correction for "innocent misrepresentation" even after a final order; benefits depend on legal marital status | Held for DLI: innocent misrepresentation permits correction of a final order under Birrueta; Veliz's report was a misrepresentation and DLI properly corrected it |
| Whether the error was instead "adjudicator error" (failure to secure adequate information) barring correction after a final order | Veliz: DLI should have obtained proof of marriage at claim intake; adjudicator erred by relying on inadequate evidence | DLI: adjudicator error under RCW 51.32.240(1)(b) refers to errors typically addressed on reconsideration/appeal and equates to insufficient evidence; substantial evidence supported the order | Held for DLI: substantial evidence supported the adjudicator’s finding; not adjudicator error that precludes correction |
| Whether "married" in RCW 51.32.060 should be interpreted to include a worker’s good-faith belief or foreign/concubinage relationships | Veliz (dissent): statute silent on definition; fair statutory purpose supports treating long-term cohabiting, good-faith relationships as "marriage" for benefits; DLI should investigate foreign law | DLI (majority): marriage is defined by chapter 26.04 RCW (formal solemnization or valid foreign marriage); statutory framework supports relying on legal marital status | Held: Majority rejects expanding "married" to subjective belief; unchallenged finding that Veliz was not legally married controls |
| Whether Veliz is entitled to appellate attorney fees | Veliz: sought fees as prevailing party | DLI: Veliz did not obtain relief | Held: No fees awarded—Veliz did not prevail on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Birrueta v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 186 Wn.2d 537 (2016) (DLI may correct final orders for errors based on "innocent misrepresentation" under RCW 51.32.240(1)(a))
- In re Marriage of Pennington, 142 Wn.2d 592 (2000) (Washington requires formal solemnization; discussion of marriage formalities and recognition)
- Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339 (1995) (recognition and factors for committed intimate relationships distinct from marriage)
- Peffley-Warner v. Bowen, 113 Wn.2d 243 (1989) (Washington does not recognize common-law marriage, but recognizes valid common-law marriages from other jurisdictions)