Washington Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals Identifies Significant Decision that Provides Guidance on When a Worker is Voluntarily Retired
On April 8, 2026, the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals announced it had identified six 2025 Decision & Orders as significant and delisted three prior Decisions & Orders. Significant decisions are ones the Board determines have analysis or decision of substantial importance. Among the identified significant decisions is the case of In re Deborah Hardy, BIIA Dec., 23 19203 (2025). Although the case was identified as significant because of its discussion of the burden of proof employers must meet when litigating an appeal and what evidence the Board will and will not consider when a motion to dismiss is denied or a dismissal decision is deferred, the Hardy case is also noteworthy because of its discussion regarding voluntarily retired workers.
WAC 296-14-100 states workers who are voluntarily retired are not entitled to time loss benefits. In order to qualify as voluntarily retired, the following conditions must be met:
- The worker must not be receiving income, salary, or wages from any gainful employment;
- There is no evidence to show the worker has made a bona fide attempt to return to work after retirement; and
- An industrial injury or occupational disease was not a proximate cause of the worker’s retirement.
Proving each of these elements is oftentimes difficult, especially if a worker identifies their workers’ compensation claim as a reason why they retired.
However, the Hardy case may make proving a worker is voluntarily retired a little easier to achieve. Ms. Hardy had worked as a payroll clerk for six years before she filed two claims: an injury claim for her shoulder and an occupational disease claim for her right arm. She underwent surgery under both claims and her symptoms improved. Both claims came before the Board on time loss order appeals filed by both parties.
The employer provided evidence that Ms. Hardy submitted retirement paperwork, told her coworkers she intended to retire, and did, in fact, retire in March 2022. Ms. Hardy testified she contemplated retirement until she realized the cost of health insurance and began looking for full-time work in April 2022. She applied for eight bookkeeping jobs over the course of four months and was not contacted for an interview at any of the positions. She stopped looking for work and intended to utilize Medicare once she became eligible. She did not work after March 2022.
The Board determined Ms. Hardy was a voluntarily retired worker and the challenged Department orders awarding time loss benefits after she retired were incorrect. Since the Board found there was no medical evidence presented at hearing that either of Ms. Hardy’s claims were a cause of her decision to retire, the issue of whether she was voluntarily retired hinged on whether her job search for four months after March 2022 constituted a “bona fide” attempt to return to work.
The Board determined Ms. Hardy had not. She not only declined help from a vocational counselor to find a job, but submitting eight online applications over the course of four months (approximately two per month) that did not result in any interviews did not show a good faith effort to return to work. The Board specifically stated: “Two applications a month does not constitute a bona fide attempt to return to work. An intent to return to the work force after voluntary departure from the work force does not, by itself, constitute a bona fide attempt.” The Board even went so far as to state that a “perfunctory online employment search cannot negate a voluntary retirement.”
Although the Board did not identify this discussion of what constitutes a bona fide effort to return to work as the reason it was identified as a significant decision, it does provide guidance and insight as to what constitutes a genuine or sincere effort to return to work. In a world where online applications have become the standard rather than the exception, proof of only a handful of online submissions over the course of a few months and no further efforts does not, in the Board’s assessment, demonstrate a good faith effort to rejoin the work force.
The issue of whether a worker is voluntarily retired may not arise very often when administering claims, but this Hardy decision is one to keep in mind if one comes across your desk. If you have a claim that raises a question of whether the worker is voluntarily retired and it is unclear whether this exception to time loss benefits could apply, please do not hesitate to contact Christine at 503-412-3117 or .
Posted by Christine Olson.
