WA BIIA 2025 Significant Decisions
Every year, the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals designates a handful of decisions and orders as “significant.” The Board identified five new significant decisions from 2025 that relate to workers’ compensation laws.
Significant decisions are selected because they “have an analysis or decision of substantial importance” to the Board in carrying out its duties. WAC 263-12-195(1). They are, essentially, guideposts for how the Board will decide future similar cases. These decisions are therefore extremely useful resources when trying to understand the nuances of Washington workers’ compensation law.
In re Deborah Hardy, BIIA Dec., 233 19203 (2025) highlights the importance of tracking the burden of persuasion. One party has the burden of persuading the Board that they should win, but who carries that burden can shift throughout a trial.
When the employer is the appealing party, they need to establish a prima facie case. In other words, the employer needs to present enough evidence in their case-in-chief that allow the Board to rule in their favor. Once the employer finishes their case in chief, an opposing party can make a motion to dismiss by arguing that the employer did not present the required evidence. If the opposing party does not make a motion to dismiss, or if the judge denies the motion, then the burden of persuasion shifts to the claimant. The claimant will then need to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the Department’s order on appeal is correct.
This shifting burden of persuasion might seem pedantic, but it can win or lose a case. In Hardy, the issue was whether the claimant voluntarily retired. The employer had appealed, and when the employer finished their case-in-chief, no opposing party made a motion to dismiss. The burden of persuasion then shifted to the claimant, who had to prove that they had not voluntarily retired. The Board found that the claimant failed to prove they had not voluntarily retired, and so the employer won on appeal. If you would like to learn more about the Hardy case, please see Christine’s blog post.
Motions to dismiss are available to all non-appealing parties, not just claimants. In In re Chong Pak, BIIA Dec., 23 15521 (2025), claimant appealed an over payment order and a time-loss recalculation order. After claimant presented his case-in-chief, the Department moved to dismiss, arguing that claimant failed to present evidence that either order was incorrect. The Board ultimately found that claimant had established a prima facie case for one of the orders, but not the other.
Importantly, the Board emphasizes in In re Chong Pak that when a non-appealing party makes a motion to dismiss, they can either rest on their motion or present their own evidence. If they present their own evidence, then Board must review all evidence presented from both parties in deciding whether to grant the motion to dismiss. Still, it will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the appealing party.
In re Marc Denbo, BIIA Dec., 25 13319 (2025) reminds parties of the importance of keeping track of an appeal’s jurisdictional history. Department letters can be appealed. If a letter is appealed and the Department issues a subsequent order reiterating the contents of that letter, the Department does not reassume jurisdiction. The Board will retain jurisdiction of the appealed letter unless the Department modifies or reverses the decision outlined in the letter within 60 days. If you would like a deeper dive into this case, please see Liz’s blog post.
The Board’s significant decisions from 2025 also highlight the importance of specificity. In re David Gheorghita, BIIA Dec., 24 12741 (2025) held protests must include language that indicates disagreement with a specific order. The easiest way to satisfy this requirement is to list the date of the order in dispute in the protest. For example, if you want to protest an order dated 7/1/2026, then the protest should clearly say, “This is a protest of the order dated 7/1/26.”
In re Richard Curran, BIIA Dec., 24 10578 (2025) held that if an industrial insurance judge orders sanctions, they need to incorporate their sanctions ruling and related findings of fact and conclusions of law into a proposed decision and order. Otherwise, the Board will be incapable of reviewing the decision and order on appeal.
If you have any questions on how the 2025 significant decisions may impact a claim, please do not hesitate to contact me at or by telephone at (971) 369-5232.
Posted by Morgan Terhune.
