Opinion ID: 2608708
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: in re saltis

Text: Our examination of the requirements of service under RCW 51.52.110 with regard to the facts of Spokane make it less difficult to dispose of petitioner Joseph Saltis' claim in this action. Saltis sought benefits from Longview Fibre Company, a self-insured employer under the industrial insurance act, for an employment-related hearing loss. The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals allowed the claim. Longview Fibre appealed to the Superior Court, serving notice of appeal by mail on the Department, not the director of the department. Saltis moved in Superior Court to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with RCW 51.52.110 in serving notice of appeal on the Director of the Department. The Superior Court denied the motion, ruling that the employer had substantially complied with the statute. Thereafter the trial judge reversed the Board's decision, finding for the employer. Saltis again moved for dismissal on his jurisdictional claim, and the motion was again denied and judgment for the employer was entered. Saltis appealed to Division Two solely on the jurisdictional service issue. Division Two affirmed, holding that the failure to address the notice to the director was at most a technical defect and insufficient to deprive the court of jurisdiction. We granted Saltis' petition for review. We now, however, will affirm the Court of Appeals decision in this case. As was established at trial, the method of service effected was reasonably calculated to give notice of appeal to the Director; in the ordinary course of business, the routing of mail in the Department would cause the notice of appeal to be served upon the Director: [T]he mail receiving room in the Department of Labor and Industries ... has instructions to deliver Superior Court notices of appeal by employers received to the office of the Director of the Department of Labor and Industries. Affidavit of Sharon K. Bright. This is sufficient under the analysis adopted in our consideration of Spokane. We therefore must reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, Division Three, in Spokane, and remand the case to the Superior Court to determine whether the Director received actual notice of appeal or if the notice of appeal was served in a manner reasonably calculated to give notice to the Director. On the basis of evidence at the trial court level that the service in In re Saltis was reasonably calculated to give notice to the Director, we must affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, Division Two, that substantial compliance with RCW 51.52.110 perfected the appeal to Superior Court and dismiss the appeal. It is so ordered. UTTER, C.J., and BRACHTENBACH, DOLLIVER, HICKS, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur. ROSELLINI and STAFFORD, JJ., concur in the result. Reconsideration denied February 13, 1981.