Legal Opinion

Cockle v. Department of Labor & Industries

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 18, 2001No. 68539-8Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Guy, J.*

(concurring in dissent) — I agree with the result and with most of the reasoning of the dissent. I write only to emphasize that when the Legislature enacted the language of RCW 51.08.178 in 1971, health insurance was a well-known and well-recognized form of compensation. By not including health insurance coverage in its definition of wages in RCW 51.08.178, the Legislature intentionally excluded it. Moreover, given the Department of Labor and Industries’ exclusion of health insurance coverage in its calculation of wages, the Legislature has had ample opportunity to clarify the statute…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation ProgramsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. White v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Bradley v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Hart v. Peoples National BankWashington Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Cockle v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API