Cache Valley Electric Company v. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries

Cache Valley Electric · Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three · April 21, 2026 · No. 40842-6-III

Summary

The Washington Court of Appeals, Division Three, granted reconsideration, withdrew its March 12, 2026 opinion, and issued a revised published opinion. The court held that expired rubber protective equipment is “used” under WAC 296-45-255(7) when an employer makes it available at a worksite, and reinstated the related penalty. The court also upheld the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals’ penalty assessment for a chainsaw operated within the minimum approach distance of an energized power line.

Holdings

  1. Rubber protective equipment is "used" within the meaning of WAC 296-45-255(7) when an employer makes the equipment available at the worksite. Because Cache Valley made expired protective blankets available to its workers, it violated the regulation, and the Department's citation and penalty for Item 2 were reinstated.
  2. The Board did not abuse its discretion by assigning a probability rate of 3 and affirming the penalty for the chainsaw violation. The Board could emphasize the chainsaw's close proximity to the exposed high-voltage power line rather than the disputed duration of the encroachment.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether rubber protective equipment is "used" under WAC 296-45-255(7) when an employer makes expired equipment available at a worksite, even if the equipment is not placed on a power line.
  2. Whether the Board abused its discretion in assigning the highest probability rate and affirming the penalty for operating a chainsaw within the minimum approach distance of an exposed high-voltage power line.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (6)

  • Erection Co., Inc. v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 160 Wn. App. 194, 201, 248 P.3d 1085 (2011)(followed)
  • Bayley Constr. v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 10 Wn. App. 2d 768, 781, 450 P.3d 647 (2019)(followed)
  • BD Roofing, Inc. v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 139 Wn. App. 98, 107, 161 P.3d 387 (2007)(followed)
  • P.E.L. v. Premera Blue Cross, 2 Wn.3d 460, 494, 540 P.3d 105 (2023)(followed)
  • State v. Watson, 146 Wn.2d 947, 954, 51 P.3d 66 (2002)(followed)
  • Ostrom Mushroom Farm Co. v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 13 Wn. App. 2d 262, 276, 463 P.3d 149 (2020)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…