Court Opinion

ID: 9609426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:26:59.680219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:50.455627
License: Public Domain

Petrich, A.C.J.
(dissenting)—I dissent from that portion of the majority's opinion which holds that the board had jurisdiction to review the case on the merits where no petition for review was filed within 20 days of the proposed decision. It seems obvious to me that the legislature's response to Seese v. Department of Labor & Indus., 73 Wn.2d 213, 437 P.2d 694 (1968), precludes the board from retaining any jurisdiction. In Seese, the court was faced with a situation where the petition had not been filed within the 20 days, but there then existed no limitation as to when or how the board may allow an additional period to file such a petition. The court ruled that the board could retain jurisdiction in absence of a clear mandate to the contrary from the legislature. In my view the legislature in 1971 issued this clear mandate by permitting the board to allow an extended period only when there was a written application for such extension filed within 20 days of the proposed decision. RCW 51.52.104.
It may be argued, as the majority claims, that the statute is not entirely free from ambiguity. If so, an appropriate rule by the board, delineating when in its judgment its jurisdiction would be relinquished, might be entitled to *126some consideration by the court. However, the board's rules in WAC 263-12-140 and 263-12-145 are essentially the same as RCW 51.52.104.
The board's declaration of June 5, 1978, set forth in the majority opinion, seems to be within the definition of a rule defined in the administrative procedure act in RCW 34.04-.010. The act defines a rule to mean "any agency order, directive, or regulation of general applicability ... (b) which establishes, alters, or revokes any procedure, practice, or requirement relating to agency hearings; . . Yet the board's declaration, amounting in my judgment to a rule, was not adopted in accordance with the procedures mandated by RCW 34.04.020 through 34.04.080 and should not be effective for any purpose.
Since the board lost jurisdiction when the petition was not filed within the required 20 days, no appeal may be taken to the superior court. For that reason I would reverse the judgment below.
Reconsideration denied February 9, 1982.
Review denied by Supreme Court May 7, 1982.