Finality of Determinative Orders Depends on Proper Service: Lessons from Roetcisoender

By John M. Zanetti, Attorney at Law

The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals recently issued a significant decision that serves as a reminder to employers of the importance of proper service. The decision, In re Zachariah Roetcisoender,[1] involved a September 2021 closing order that was protested well beyond the sixty-day deadline under RCW 51.52.050. The claimant argued the order was not final because it had not been served on one of his treating providers, a psychologist who had been involved in his care. The Board rejected that argument and granted summary judgment in favor of the Department, holding the closing order became final and binding because it was mailed to the attending provider of record.

The Board’s decision in Roetcisoender underscores an important procedural point. Service of closing and other determinative orders must be made on the claimant, on legal counsel if one has appeared, the employer, and on the designated attending provider.[2] Service on other treating providers, no matter how involved they may be, does not satisfy the statute. In Roetcisoender, the claimant’s protest was untimely because the Department correctly served the attending provider of record, and the order therefore became final sixty days later.

For self-insured employers and third-party administrators, the lesson is straightforward but critical. Closing orders, as well as any determinative orders, should be carefully reviewed upon receipt to both confirm the accuracy of the order, as well as check all required parties were copied with current addresses. Failure to ensure proper service can mean an order never becomes final, leaving it vulnerable to challenge months or even years later. A simple checklist—claimant, employer, counsel if present, and attending provider—can prevent unnecessary exposure.

Another practical step is to confirm the identity of the attending provider early and often. If there is any doubt about who is serving in that role, send written correspondence to the claimant clarifying the designation and documenting the response. Doing so reduces the risk that a claimant will later argue that the wrong provider was served, or that the order was never final.

Although Roetcisoender is on appeal in Superior Court, the Board’s reasoning follows long-standing principles of finality and service. Employers who consistently verify service and provider status are in the best position to rely on unprotested orders as truly final and binding.

For employers seeking guidance on reviewing determinative orders and ensuring proper service, the attorneys in our Washington practice group are always available to discuss a specific case or your general claims handling processes.

[1] BIIA Dec., 23 14840 (2024).
[2] RCW 51.52.050(1) requires the Department to “serve the worker, beneficiary, employer, or other
person affected thereby.” Employers should also be mindful to account for any “other person affected thereby….”