Renton School District 403 v. Daniel D. Dolph
415 P.3d 269
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dolph, a school district groundskeeper, injured in 2010; Department of Labor & Industries approved and later closed his claim by order dated March 27, 2012.
- The Department mailed the March 2012 closing order to the Walthew Law Firm, which did not represent Dolph and returned the file on April 6, 2012 with Dolph's correct address.
- The District's claims administrator separately sent Dolph a copy of the March 2012 closing order in Sept./Oct. 2012 as an accommodation; Dolph received his file then.
- The Department did not re-mail the closing order to Dolph at his address of record until May 6, 2014. Dolph filed reconsideration and appeals shortly after that mailing.
- The Board and the superior court held Dolph’s appeal timely because, under RCW 51.52.050, a closing order becomes final only when the Department itself mails it to the worker at the last known address.
- This Court affirmed, rejected the District’s arguments that third‑party receipt or the Department’s initial (misaddressed) mailing triggered the 60‑day appeal clock, and awarded Dolph appellate attorney fees under RCW 51.52.130(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (District) | Defendant's Argument (Dolph/Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 60‑day appeal period is triggered by any receipt of the closing order (including from a third party). | Receipt by Dolph (via the District’s claims manager) in 2012 started the 60‑day clock. | The statutory 60‑day clock is triggered only when the Department itself mails the closing order to the worker at the last known address. | Held for Dolph: a third party’s communication does not trigger the deadline; Department mailing is required. |
| Whether the Department’s March 2012 mailing to the law firm satisfied RCW 51.52.050 so the order became final in 2012. | The Department complied by mailing the order (thus order became final). | The initial mailing was to the wrong address and the law firm did not represent Dolph; Department conceded noncompliance. | Held for Dolph: mailing to the law firm did not comply; Department did not properly communicate the order until May 2014. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arriaqa v. Dep't of Labor & Industries, 183 Wn. App. 817 (2014) ("communicated" interpreted as received for Dept. mailings)
- Kaiser Aluminum v. Dep't of Labor & Industries, 57 Wn. App. 886 (1990) (mailing to employer deemed communication on receipt)
- Rodriquez v. Dep't of Labor & Industries, 85 Wn.2d 949 (1975) (order communicated when worker received it despite incapacity to read)
- Larson, 184 Wn.2d 843 (2015) (statutory interpretation principles; plain meaning controls)
- Burns v. City of Seattle, 161 Wn.2d 129 (2007) (statutory words read in context)
- Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Granger, 159 Wn.2d 752 (2007) (liberal construction of workers’ compensation statutes)
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Tri, 117 Wn.2d 128 (1991) (Board interpretations entitled to deference)