Whether Southwick was acting with "authority oflaw" when it moved the
cremains in response to the City's request without notifying next of kin.
ANALYSIS
Our review ofthe Board's final order is governed by the APA.RCW
34.05.570. As relevant to this case, we may reverse the Board's order if it is based
on an error oflaw or if it is unsupported by substantial evidence. RCW
34.05.570(3)(d),(e).
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State Funeral & Cemetery Bd,No. 95237-0
We review issues of statutory interpretation and an agency's conclusions of
law de novo. Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756, 761, 317 P.3d 1003(2014)(citing
Dep't ofEcology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9,43 P.3d 4(2002));
Ames V. Dep't ofHealth, Med. Quality Assur. Comm 'n, 166 Wn.2d 255, 260, 208
P.3d 549(2009)(citing Kellum v. Dep't ofRet. Sys., 61 Wn. App. 288, 291, 810
P.2d 523 (1991)). However, we give substantial weight to an agency's
interpretation ofthe law it administers, especially when the issue falls within the
agency's expertise. Haley v. Med. Disciplinary Bd., 117 Wn.2d 720, 728, 818 P.2d
1062(1991)(citing St. Francis Extended Health Care v. Dep't ofSoc. & Health
Servs., 115 Wn.2d 690, 695, 801 P.2d 212(1990)). In this case, the Board is
charged with administering the statutes in chapter 68.50 RCW.RCW 68.05.090.
Thus, the issue in this case is within its expertise, and we accord its interpretation
substantial weight.
RCW 68.50.140(4) provides,"Every person who removes, disinters, or
mutilates human remains from a place of interment, without authority oflaw, is
guilty of a class C felony."^ RCW 18.235.130(8) makes it unprofessional conduct