69808-7
Wash. Ct. App.Jun 2, 2014Background
- May 4, 2010: L&I mails infraction notice and $1,000 penalty to Pacific Rim Paving for contractor registration act violation.
- Notice directs payment, registration, or appeal; appeal requires grounds, $200 cashier’s check, and must be received within 20 days.
- Signature for delivery accepted on May 20, 2010 by Pacific Rim's agent; May 26 Pacific Rim signs protest letter with attached statements.
- June 9, 2010: Department denies appeal as untimely; Pacific Rim pays $200 appeal bond.
- Pacific Rim appeals to Skagit County Superior Court; court grants Department motion to dismiss for failure to perfect appeal under RCW 18.27.250; Pacific Rim appeals the dismissal.
- The Washington Court of Appeals reviews under RCW 34.05 and affirms, holding no error in the Department’s timeliness ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 20-day appeal period runs from mailing or receipt. | Pacific Rim argues notice must be received before the 20 days. | Department contends service by mail completes on mailing date per RCW 18.27.010(11). | Time begins at mailing; service completed by mail within 20 days. |
| Whether the 20-day rule violated due process. | APA due process rights were violated by lack of actual notice. | Policy concerns belong to legislature; courts do not rewrite statutes. | No due process violation; policy considerations not for the court to rewrite. |
| Whether the envelope/holder name error invalidates service. | Notice was misaddressed to an incorrect holder name. | Records show correct name; no error in service. | No error in addressing; Department’s records support proper service. |
Key Cases Cited
- Overlake Hosp. Ass'n v. Dep't of Health, 170 Wn.2d 43 (2010) (arbitrary and capricious standard; willful disregard of facts)
- Tapper v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 122 Wn.2d 397 (1993) (application of RCW 34.05 standard; de novo review with weight to agency)
- Sedlacek v. Hillis, 145 Wn.2d 379 (2001) (statutory interpretation and policy concerns not for court to rewrite)
- City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 136 Wn.2d 38 (1998) (standard of review for agency interpretations)