Interwest appealed the assessment to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals. The Board affirmed the Proposed Decision and Order of August 1, 1997. On appeal, the Thurston County Superior Court affirmed the Board's decision. Sonners contends that the Board incorrectly determined that his company, Interwest, owed industrial insurance premiums. The Department submits that the Board correctly interpreted and applied the law and that substantial evidence supports its findings that Interwest, not Barrett, was the employer for the purposes of industrial insurance.
Review is of the agency record rather than the trial court record.
See Jefferson County v. The Board's findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the declared premise. We review the Board's legal conclusions de novo, but we give substantial weight to the agency's interpretation when the subject area falls within the agency's area of expertise. Hamel v. Employment Sec. The employer challenging the validity of the agency action bears the burden of proof before the Board to show that the premiums were assessed incorrectly.