Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 43636-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2043636-1-II%20%20Published%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,758 chars

II. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT DELLEN " DEFAULTED" UNDER THE ACT

Dellen next argues that the Board and the superior court erred in concluding that it

Dellen) " defaulted" under the Act because ( 1) it intended to " terminate" its self -insurance

obligations, not to declare or to be in " default" under the Act; ( 2) it was current on all its self -

insurance obligations, even when it ceased being a self -insured employer; ( 3) it intended to

21
continue making "` whatever payments were required' , to the Department; ( 4) it had provided a

surety in excess of its injured workers' claims; and ( 5) it used the term " default" in its letter to

the Department only because the Department had so instructed. Reply Br. of Appellant at 3.

These arguments fail.

A. Standard of Review

In reviewing a Board decision under the Industrial Insurance Act, a superior court

considers the issues de novo, relying on the certified Board record. Watson v. Dep' t ofLabor &

Indus., 133 Wn. App. 903, 909, 138 P. 3d 177 ( 2006), RCW 51. 52. 115. Our review of a superior

court' s decision is limited to examining the Board record to determine whether substantial

evidence supports the superior court' s de novo review findings and whether the court' s

conclusions of law flow from those findings. Ruse v. Dep' t of Labor & Indus., 138 Wn.2d 1, 5-

6, 977 P. 2d 570 ( 1999). When reviewing factual issues, the substantial evidence standard is

highly deferential to the agency fact finder. Chandler v. Office of Ins. Comm' r, 141 Wn. App.

639, 648, 173 P. 3d 275 ( 2007), review denied, 163 Wn.2d 1056 ( 2008). We do not weigh the

evidence or substitute our judgment about witness credibility for that of the agency. Chandler,

141 Wn. App. at 648.