The Washington Administrative Procedures Act3 (APA) governs our review. RCW
59.30.040(10). Under the APA, the party challenging an agency action has the burden of
demonstrating the action is invalid and must show substantial prejudice. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a),
(d). A reviewing court may reverse an administrative order if the order violates the constitution,
exceeds statutory authority, or involves an error in interpreting or applying the law. RCW
34.05.570(3)(a), (b), (d). In this case, we will grant relief only if the agency has erroneously
interpreted or applied the law.4 RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).
Additionally, we are reviewing the ALJ’s order granting summary judgment. “While the
APA does not explicitly authorize agencies to use summary judgment procedures, case law has
established that judicial review of such summary proceedings must ‘overlay the APA standard of
2
Ruling Accepting Direct Review (July 22, 2019).
3
Chapter 34.05 RCW.
4
TST does not apply the standards set forth in the APA in its briefing. It is clear that the only
issue presented is the correct interpretation of RCW 59.20.090(2), which is an issue of law. See
Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756, 761-62, 317 P.3d 1003 (2014). Therefore, we apply the
standard for an erroneous interpretation of the law from the APA. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).
4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 53352-9-II
review with the summary judgment standard.’” City of Seattle v. American Healthcare Services,
Inc., 13 Wn. App. 2d 838, 850, 468 P.3d 637 (2020) (quoting Verizon Nw., Inc. v. Emp’t Sec.
Dep’t, 164 Wn.2d 909, 915-16, 194 P.3d 255 (2008)).
“‘Summary judgment is appropriate only where the undisputed facts entitle the moving