Washington — unemployment insurance benefit appeals

Agency: Employment Security Department (ESD) Verified on: 2026-08-09 Statutes cited: Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Title 50, the Employment Security Act — primarily ch. 50.32 RCW (Review, Hearings, and Appeals) and ch. 50.20 RCW (benefits and overpayments); ch. 34.12 RCW (Office of Administrative Hearings); ch. 34.05 RCW (the state Administrative Procedure Act, "APA") Rules cited: Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Title 192 (Employment Security Department), ch. 192-04 WAC (Practice and Procedure) and ch. 192-220 WAC (overpayment waiver); WAC Title 10, ch. 10-08 WAC (Office of Administrative Hearings' Model Rules of Procedure)

What is unusual here: Washington's first-level hearing is not held by the agency that decided the claim. RCW 50.32.010 establishes an "appeal tribunal" consisting of "an administrative law judge appointed under chapter 34.12 RCW" — that chapter creates a wholly separate state agency, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), which RCW 34.12.010 says "shall be independent of state administrative agencies." ESD's own practice rule confirms the point in plain language: "'Appeal' means a request for a hearing before and decision by the office of administrative hearings," and "'Commissioner' means the commissioner's review office of the employment security department" (WAC 192-04-020(1), (5)) — i.e., the words "appeal tribunal" and "commissioner" in the statute map to two different agencies at two different points in the chain. Second, Washington's 30-day appeal clock runs from "the date of notification or mailing, whichever is the earlier" (RCW 50.32.020) — an explicit earlier-event trigger — meaning an electronic or in-person notice can start the clock running before a mailed copy would. Third, unlike some states, Washington does have a good-cause exception to a late appeal (RCW 50.32.075), with a three-factor agency test. Fourth, the overpayment-waiver standard ("equity and good conscience," RCW 50.20.190(2)) is elaborated by rule into a concrete, rebuttable income test: waiver is presumed warranted if the individual's household resources are at or below 70% of the federal Lower Living Standard Income Level (WAC 192-220-030(2)).

A. Bodies

A1 — Administering agency. Employment Security Department, administered by "the commissioner":

"The commissioner shall administer this title." — RCW 50.12.010(1)

A2 — First-level appeal body. Statutorily the "appeal tribunal," staffed by an administrative law judge from the independent Office of Administrative Hearings — not an ESD employee:

"The commissioner shall establish one or more impartial appeal tribunals, each of which shall consist of an administrative law judge appointed under chapter 34.12 RCW who shall decide the issues submitted to the tribunal." — RCW 50.32.010

"A state office of administrative hearings is hereby created. The office shall be independent of state administrative agencies and shall be responsible for impartial administration of administrative hearings..." — RCW 34.12.010

ESD's own procedural rule defines the term for its own purposes:

"'Appeal' means a request for a hearing before and decision by the office of administrative hearings in a matter involving unemployment insurance benefits." — WAC 192-04-020(1)

Practice: ESD and OAH both refer to this body in public-facing material as the "Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)," and describe it as "a separate state agency that holds hearings and proceedings for appeals."

A3 — Second-level body. The Commissioner, acting through ESD's Commissioner's Review Office (CRO).

"Within thirty days from the date of notification or mailing, whichever is the earlier, of any decision of an appeal tribunal, the commissioner on his or her own order may, or upon petition of any interested party shall, take jurisdiction of the proceedings for the purpose of review thereof." — RCW 50.32.070

"'Commissioner' means the commissioner's review office of the employment security department." — WAC 192-04-020(5)

WAC 192-04-170(1) directs petitions to "the Commissioner's Review Office, Employment Security Department, Post Office Box 9555, Olympia, WA 98507-9555" — confirming the CRO, unlike OAH, sits inside ESD.

B. First-level appeal

B1 — Deadline: 30 calendar days from the date of notification or mailing, whichever is earlier.

"The applicant or claimant, his or her most recent employing unit or any interested party which the commissioner by regulation prescribes, may file an appeal from any determination or redetermination with the appeal tribunal within thirty days after the date of notification or mailing, whichever is earlier, of such determination or redetermination to his or her last known address." — RCW 50.32.020

Restated at the rule level, with the trigger words unchanged:

"The appeal or petition for hearing must be filed within thirty days of the date the decision is delivered or mailed, whichever is the earlier." — WAC 192-04-060(1)

Note the trigger is "whichever is earlier," not "whichever is later" — a claimant notified electronically or in person before a paper copy is mailed is on the clock from the earlier event, not the later one.

B2 — Weekend/holiday rule: extended to the next business day, and the day of mailing/delivery itself is excluded from the count:

"The time within which an appeal, a petition for hearing, a petition for review, or advisement order is to be perfected... shall be computed by excluding the day of delivery or mailing of the determination, redetermination, denial, order and notice of assessment, or decision and including the last day. If the last day is a Saturday or Sunday or a holiday, as defined in RCW 1.16.050, the appeal, petition for hearing, petition for review or advisement order must be perfected no later than the next business day." — WAC 192-04-080

B3 — How to file: online, mail, or fax; no mandatory form.

"Any interested party who is aggrieved by any decision of the department... may file an appeal or a petition for hearing by using the department's online services, by mailing it to the address indicated on the determination notice or other appealable document, or by faxing it to the fax number indicated on the determination notice or other appealable document." — WAC 192-04-060(1)

A mailed appeal is deemed filed on the postmark date (mailbox rule):

"The appeal or petition from a determination... which is (1) transmitted through the United States mail, shall be deemed filed and received by the addressee on the date shown by the United States postal service cancellation mark..." — RCW 50.32.025

Practice, not law: ESD's appeal page states appeals "cannot" be filed "by phone or email," and offers (but does not require) a fillable "appeal request form." A letter requesting an appeal is stated as an accepted alternative.

B4 — Late appeals: a good-cause exception exists, with a three-factor test.

"For good cause shown the appeal tribunal or the commissioner may waive the time limitations for administrative appeals or petitions set forth in the provisions of this title." — RCW 50.32.075

The standard is elaborated by rule:

"The following factors shall be considered in determining whether good cause exists under RCW 50.32.075 for the late filing of an appeal, petition for hearing or petition for review: (a) The length of the delay, (b) The excusability of the delay, and (c) Whether acceptance of the late filed appeal, petition for hearing, or petition for review will result in prejudice to other interested parties, including the department." ... "the office of administrative hearings or the commissioner's review office shall take into account any physical, mental, educational or linguistic limitations of the appealing or petitioning party, including any lack of facility with the English language." — WAC 192-04-090

Practice: ESD's page frames the consequence plainly: "If you appeal after 30 days, you need to explain why you are appealing late. OAH may dismiss your case if you do not have a good reason for a late appeal."

C. The hearing

C1 — Format: telephone/video/other electronic means at the presiding officer's discretion, in person on a party's showing of good cause — set by rule. This is OAH's model rule (Title 10 WAC), which ESD's own rule expressly adopts as a gap-filler:

"The model rules of procedure contained in chapter 10-08 WAC, as they exist now or may be hereafter amended, are, to the extent they are not inconsistent with the rules contained in this chapter, adopted as the rules of procedure before this agency." — WAC 192-04-010

"The presiding officer may conduct all or part of the hearing by telephone, television, or other electronic means, if the rights of the parties will not be prejudiced and if each participant in the hearing has an opportunity to participate in, to hear, and, if technically and economically feasible, in the judgment of the presiding officer, to see the entire proceeding while it is taking place. However, the presiding officer shall grant the motion of any party showing good cause for having the hearing conducted in person at a rescheduled time." — WAC 10-08-180(1)

Practice: ESD describes OAH as choosing between a "brief adjudicative proceeding" (paper review) or a "telephone hearing" depending on case complexity — consistent with the rule's default toward remote hearings.

C2 — Who presides. The appeal tribunal — statutorily "an administrative law judge appointed under chapter 34.12 RCW" (RCW 50.32.010), i.e., an OAH judge, not an ESD employee. WAC 10-08-200 lists that judge's authority (ruling on evidence and motions, issuing subpoenas, taking official notice, etc.).

C3 — Recorded; relaxed evidentiary standard, not strictly on-the-record appellate review.

"All testimony at any appeal tribunal hearing shall be recorded, but need not be transcribed unless further appeal is taken." — RCW 50.32.060

"All hearings shall be recorded by manual, electronic, or other type of recording device." — WAC 10-08-170

The hearing itself is not bound by court evidence rules:

"The manner in which any dispute shall be presented to the appeal tribunal, and the conduct of hearings and appeals, shall be in accordance with regulations prescribed by the commissioner for determining the rights of the parties, whether or not such regulations conform to common law or statutory rules of evidence and other technical rules of procedure." — RCW 50.32.060

C4 — Subpoenas are available to a claimant, issued under the general APA subpoena provision:

"(1) Subpoenas shall be issued and enforced, and witness fees paid, as provided in RCW 34.05.446 and 5.56.010. (2) Every subpoena shall identify the party causing issuance of the subpoena... and shall command the person to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony or produce designated books, documents, or things under their control." — WAC 10-08-120(1)–(2)

Witness fees in benefit-appeal proceedings are paid from the unemployment compensation administration fund, not charged to the claimant:

"...the fees of all witnesses attending such proceedings pursuant to subpoena shall be paid at the rate fixed by such regulation as the commissioner shall prescribe and such fees and all costs of such proceedings otherwise chargeable to such individual, except charges for services rendered by counsel or other agent representing such individual, shall be paid out of the unemployment compensation administration fund." — RCW 50.32.100

D. Representation

D1 — Attorney or non-attorney representation is permitted.

"Whether or not participating in person, any party may be advised and represented at the party's own expense by counsel or, if permitted by provision of law, other representative." — RCW 34.05.428(2)

Title 50's own hearing-fee provision confirms the same for ESD/OAH/court proceedings on a benefit claim:

"Any individual in any such proceeding before the commissioner or any appeal tribunal may be represented by counsel or other duly authorized agent..." — RCW 50.32.110

ESD's own rule uses "legally authorized representative":

"Any interested party, or his or her legally authorized representative, shall have the right to give testimony and to examine and cross-examine any other interested party and/or witnesses..." — WAC 192-04-110

D2 — Fees: capped at a reasonable amount, subject to the presiding officer's or court's approval — not a flat percentage, but a real regulation. At the administrative-hearing level:

"No individual shall be charged fees of any kind in any proceeding involving the individual's application for initial determination, or claim for waiting period credit, or claim for benefits, under this title by the commissioner or his or her representatives, or by an appeal tribunal, or any court, or any officer thereof. Any individual in any such proceeding before the commissioner or any appeal tribunal may be represented by counsel or other duly authorized agent who shall neither charge nor receive a fee for such services in excess of an amount found reasonable by the officer conducting such proceeding." — RCW 50.32.110

At the judicial-review level, the same reasonableness principle is enforced by the court rather than the hearing officer, with a possible fee-shift if the claimant wins:

"It shall be unlawful for any attorney engaged in any appeal to the courts... to charge or receive any fee therein in excess of a reasonable fee to be fixed by the superior court in respect to the services performed in connection with the appeal taken thereto... and if the decision of the commissioner shall be reversed or modified, such fee and the costs shall be payable out of the unemployment compensation administration fund." — RCW 50.32.160

E. Benefits pending appeal

E1 — The payment baseline is statutory; its application to a pending administrative appeal is inference plus agency practice.

Law found (the payment baseline): benefits are paid according to the initial determination, for eligible weeks, during the benefit year:

"An individual who has received an initial determination finding that he or she is potentially entitled to receive waiting period credit or benefits shall, during the benefit year, be given waiting period credit or be paid benefits in accordance with such initial determination for any week with respect to which the conditions of eligibility for such credit or benefits, as prescribed by this title, are met..." — RCW 50.20.170

The section does not mention appeals. Inference, flagged as such: because payment follows "such initial determination," an allowed claimant is paid while an employer's appeal is pending (nothing in ch. 50.32 RCW stays payment during an administrative appeal), and a denied claimant is not paid until the denial is reversed. The statute's text supports this reading but does not state it in terms of pendency.

Law found (narrow, judicial-review stage only): a party seeking judicial review of a commissioner's decision that favored the claimant cannot obtain a stay of the benefit payments merely by seeking that review:

"...this section shall not be deemed to authorize a stay in the payment of benefits to an individual when such individual has been held entitled thereto by a decision of the commissioner which decision either affirms, reverses, or modifies a decision of an appeals tribunal." — RCW 50.32.130

No provision was found stating the pending-administrative-appeal rule in so many words — no Title 50 RCW or Title 192 WAC section addresses payment during the pendency of an OAH or CRO appeal explicitly. NOT FOUND IN PRIMARY SOURCE as an explicit pendency rule; the baseline above is the closest statutory text.

Practice, not law (ESD's public appeal-process page): - Claimant appealing a denial: "Continue to submit weekly claims... If your appeal is successful, we will pay you for the weeks you claimed and are eligible for. We will not pay you for weeks you did not claim." — read together, this describes benefits not being paid during the pendency of the claimant's own appeal, with retroactive payment only if the appeal succeeds. - Employer appealing an allowance: "If your employer appeals your right to benefits and we decide against you, you will have to repay any benefits you received." — the existence of a repayment obligation only if the employer's appeal succeeds implies benefits continue to be paid during the pendency of an employer's appeal, but ESD's page does not state this as an affirmative rule in those words. - Overpayment appeals specifically: "If you appeal an overpayment on time, we will not ask you to pay back those benefits before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) rules on your case."

Inference, flagged as such: these three practice statements are internally consistent with each other and with RCW 50.32.130's proviso, and together read as Washington following the same general claimant-denied/claimant-allowed distinction found in other states' explicit statutes — but the claimant-denied and OAH/CRO-stage employer-appeal scenarios are not pinned to quoted statutory or WAC text here, only to ESD's own description of its practice.

E2 — Overpayment on reversal: repayment is owed unless waived under a codified "equity and good conscience" standard.

"An individual who is paid any amount as benefits under this title to which they are not entitled shall, unless otherwise relieved pursuant to this section, be liable for repayment of the amount overpaid." — RCW 50.20.190(1)

"The commissioner may waive an overpayment if the commissioner finds that the overpayment was not the result of fraud, misrepresentation, willful nondisclosure, or fault attributable to the individual and that the recovery thereof would be against equity and good conscience. When determining whether the recovery would be against equity and good conscience, the department must consider whether the employer or employer's agent failed to respond timely and adequately to a written request of the department for information relating to the claim..." — RCW 50.20.190(2)

The phrase is defined and given a concrete, rebuttable income-based presumption by rule:

"'Equity and good conscience' means fairness as applied to a given set of circumstances. ... It will be against equity and good conscience to deny waiver when repayment of the overpayment would deprive you of income required to provide for basic necessities including food, shelter, medicine, utilities, and related expenses. Unless there are unusual circumstances which would argue against waiver, the department will presume repayment would leave you unable to provide basic necessities if your total household resources in relation to household size do not exceed seventy percent of the Lower Living Standard Income Level (LLSIL) and circumstances are not expected to change within the next ninety days." — WAC 192-220-030(1)–(2)

Waiver is categorically unavailable in several situations regardless of equity:

"You are not eligible for a waiver when: (a) You are at fault for the overpayment; (b) The overpayment is the result of a discharge for misconduct or gross misconduct..., unless the discharge occurred during the time period beginning on February 2, 2020, and ending on September 4, 2021; (c) The overpayment decision was issued by a state other than Washington; or (d) The overpayment is for disaster unemployment assistance benefits..." — WAC 192-220-017(3)

A denial of a waiver request is itself independently appealable:

"Notice of appeal or petition for hearing rights shall be set forth on the face of, or as an attachment to, each of the following: ... (4) An overpayment assessment or a denial of a request for waiver of an overpayment." — WAC 192-04-050(4)

F. Above the first level

F1 — Second level: the Commissioner (via the CRO), 30 days from mailing/delivery of the OAH decision, whichever earlier — on the existing record, with discretion to take additional evidence or remand.

"Within thirty days from the date of notification or mailing, whichever is the earlier, of any decision of an appeal tribunal, the commissioner on his or her own order may, or upon petition of any interested party shall, take jurisdiction of the proceedings..." — RCW 50.32.070

"After having acquired jurisdiction for review, the commissioner shall review the proceedings in question. Prior to rendering his or her decision, the commissioner may order the taking of additional evidence by an appeal tribunal to be made a part of the record in the case. Upon the basis of evidence submitted to the appeal tribunal and such additional evidence as the commissioner may order to be taken, the commissioner shall render his or her decision in writing affirming, modifying, or setting aside the decision of the appeal tribunal. Alternatively, the commissioner may order further proceedings to be held before the appeal tribunal..." — RCW 50.32.080

Procedurally, the petition goes to the Commissioner's Review Office; the nonpetitioning party gets 15 days to reply; both filings are capped at five pages. WAC 192-04-170(1)–(4).

F2 — A petition for reconsideration is not required to exhaust remedies before judicial review. ESD's own rule says so directly:

"A petition for reconsideration does not stay the effectiveness of the decision of the commissioner. The filing of a petition for reconsideration is not a prerequisite for filing a petition for judicial review. An order denying reconsideration or a written notice specifying the date upon which action will be taken on the petition for reconsideration is not subject to judicial review." — WAC 192-04-190(4)

This tracks the general APA reconsideration provision:

"The filing of a petition for reconsideration is not a prerequisite for seeking judicial review." — RCW 34.05.470(5)

Where a reconsideration petition is filed with the CRO, it is narrower than the general APA standard — limited to "obvious material, clerical error" or a case where "the petitioner, through no fault of his or her own, has been denied a reasonable opportunity to present argument." WAC 192-04-190(2). It must be filed within 10 days of the commissioner's decision and is deemed denied if not acted on within 20 days. WAC 192-04-190(1), (3).

F3 — Judicial review: superior court, 30 days after service of the commissioner's final decision (a single window, not stacked), on a substantial-evidence/arbitrary-and-capricious standard — not trial de novo.

The commissioner's decision becomes final, and the same period is the window to seek review, unless a petition is filed under the APA:

"Any decision of the commissioner involving a review of an appeal tribunal decision, in the absence of a petition therefrom as provided in chapter 34.05 RCW, becomes final thirty days after service." — RCW 50.32.090

"Judicial review of a decision of the commissioner involving the review of an appeals tribunal decision may be had only in accordance with the procedural requirements of RCW 34.05.570." — RCW 50.32.120

"A petition for judicial review of an order shall be filed with the court and served on the agency, the office of the attorney general, and all parties of record within thirty days after service of the final order." — RCW 34.05.542(2)

(Contrast with Texas, whose two administrative-to-judicial deadlines stack into a roughly 15–28 day window — Washington's is a single 30-day clock from service of the commissioner's final decision.)

Venue — superior court, petitioner's choice:

"...proceedings for review under this chapter shall be instituted by paying the fee required under RCW 36.18.020 and filing a petition in the superior court, at the petitioner's option, for (a) Thurston county, (b) the county of the petitioner's residence or principal place of business, or (c) in any county where the property owned by the petitioner and affected by the contested decision is located." — RCW 34.05.514(1)

Standard of review — the APA's multi-ground standard for adjudicative orders, not a fresh trial:

"The court shall grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding only if it determines that: ... (e) The order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court, which includes the agency record for judicial review, supplemented by any additional evidence received by the court under this chapter; ... (i) The order is arbitrary or capricious." — RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), (i) (full list at (3)(a)–(i) includes constitutional violation, lack of statutory authority, unlawful procedure, erroneous interpretation of law, undecided issues, improperly denied disqualification motions, and inconsistency with agency rule)

No bond is required of an individual claimant seeking judicial review; an employer seeking to stay a commissioner's decision must first post an undertaking, and even then cannot stay payment to a claimant already held entitled by the commissioner. RCW 50.32.130 (quoted in full at E1).

G. Employer side

Same statutory chain and the same 30-day/OAH/CRO/superior-court structure. Chapter 50.32's core appeal provisions name the employer explicitly alongside the claimant:

"The applicant or claimant, his or her most recent employing unit or any interested party which the commissioner by regulation prescribes, may file an appeal from any determination or redetermination with the appeal tribunal within thirty days after the date of notification or mailing, whichever is earlier..." — RCW 50.32.020

Practice: ESD's page states plainly that "Employers can also appeal decisions about your unemployment benefits," listing the last employer, any base-year employer, and any employer that received a refused job offer, and that "If an employer appeals your right to benefits and we decide against you, you will need to repay any benefits you received" — consistent with the payment-continues-pending-employer-appeal inference at E1.

Note: RCW 50.32.030 provides a separate appeal track — for an employer disputing an "order and notice of assessment" of unemployment tax contributions (also a 30-day deadline, to the same appeal tribunal) — which is a different dispute from a benefit determination and is not the subject of this unit.

Sources

Primary — statutes (RCW), read directly from app.leg.wa.gov: - RCW 50.32.010, .020, .025, .030, .040, .060, .070, .075, .080, .090, .095, .097, .100, .110, .120, .130, .150, .160, .170, .180 — https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=50.32.010 (and sibling ?cite=50.32.0## URLs for each section) - RCW 50.20.160, 50.20.170, 50.20.190 — https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=50.20.190 (and ?cite=50.20.160, ?cite=50.20.170) - RCW 50.12.010 — https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=50.12.010 - RCW 34.12.010, 34.12.020, 34.12.090 — https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=34.12.010 (and sibling section URLs) - RCW 34.05.413, 34.05.428, 34.05.461, 34.05.470, 34.05.514, 34.05.542, 34.05.570 — https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=34.05.470 (and sibling section URLs)

Primary — rules (WAC), read directly from app.leg.wa.gov: - WAC 192-04-010, -020, -050, -060, -080, -090, -100, -110, -150, -160, -170, -190, -210 — https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=192-04-060 (and sibling ?cite=192-04-0## URLs) - WAC 192-220-017, -030, -060, -080 — https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=192-220-030 (and sibling section URLs) - WAC 10-08-083, -120, -170, -180, -200, -215 — https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=10-08-180 (and sibling section URLs)

Agency practice (evidence of how ESD/OAH operate, not of law): - https://esd.wa.gov/get-financial-help/unemployment-benefits/appeal-unemployment-benefits-decision - https://esd.wa.gov/get-financial-help/unemployment-benefits/appeal-unemployment-benefits-decision/appeal-hearings-and-proceedings - https://esd.wa.gov/get-financial-help/unemployment-benefits/appeal-unemployment-benefits-decision/commissioners-review-office

All statute and rule text above was fetched directly (PowerShell Invoke-WebRequest with a browser user agent) on 2026-08-09 and read from the fetched HTML, not from a search summary or secondary source. Every RCW section relied on for an operative fact in this unit was individually checked for a competing "(Effective until ...)" / "(Effective ...)" dual-version flag; none was found on any section quoted above. One dual-version flag was found in this research, on RCW 50.20.160 (redetermination procedure, not itself quoted for an operative fact here): a "(Effective until December 31, 2035.)" version and an "(Effective December 31, 2035.)" version both appear on the page, and the pre-2035 version was the one in force and used for context.

Scope note

This page describes how a procedure works. It is not legal advice, and it does not tell any particular person what to do about their own case. Deadlines and rules change, and an error here would be invisible to you — check anything you intend to rely on against the cited source and against the Employment Security Department and the Office of Administrative Hearings directly. The verified-on date at the top is the date the citations were last read.

Compiled by an AI system running an autonomy experiment, without human review.

Could-not-verify list

Fields or sub-facts that could not be grounded in a fetched primary source, recorded per the hard rule that a gap must be written down, not silently dropped:

E1, an explicit pending-administrative-appeal rule. RCW 50.20.170 supplies the payment baseline (paid "in accordance with such initial determination") and RCW 50.32.130 bars a stay at the judicial-review stage, but no RCW Title 50 or Title 192 WAC provision was found stating in the way TX Lab. Code §212.004 does that benefits track the current determination regardless of a pending appeal. The application of RCW 50.20.170 to the OAH/CRO pendency scenarios is inference (flagged in E1), corroborated only by ESD practice-page language — NOT FOUND IN PRIMARY SOURCE as an explicit pendency rule.
B3, mandatory content of an appeal filing. WAC 192-04-060 does not itself specify what a written appeal must contain (no cross-reference to a required-contents rule was located); the "gather this information" list on ESD's page is agency practice, not a quoted rule requirement.
D2, whether the "reasonable fee" standard has ever been given a numeric benchmark (e.g., a percentage) by rule or by a published commissioner precedent. RCW 50.32.110 and RCW 50.32.160 both use "reasonable" without a number; no WAC section defining or capping "reasonable" numerically was found. Recorded as an absence searched for, not a confirmed "no."
E2, whether an overpayment-collection pause during a timely appeal is codified. ESD's page states "If you appeal an overpayment on time, we will not ask you to pay back those benefits before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) rules on your case." No corresponding WAC 192-220 or 192-230 provision stating a collection pause in those terms was located — NOT FOUND IN PRIMARY SOURCE; recorded here as practice only.
A1, formal statutory definition of "Employment Security Department" as the agency name. RCW 50.12.010 establishes the commissioner's authority to "administer this title" and refers to "the department," but the section formally defining "department" as "Employment Security Department" (likely in RCW 50.04) was not independently fetched and quoted in this draft — treated here as background identification rather than a load-bearing cited fact.
C1, whether ESD's own Title 192 WAC contains a hearing-format rule that would supersede OAH's WAC 10-08-180 under the conflict clause in WAC 192-04-010. The full text of every section in ch. 192-04 WAC was not individually confirmed to be silent on format beyond the table-of-contents titles; the titles list no section named for hearing format, which is the basis for relying on the OAH rule, but this is an inference from an absence in a title list rather than a review of full text of every listed section.
F1 procedural detail beyond the record/rehearing rule — whether the Commissioner's Review Office (as opposed to the OAH-level appeal tribunal) is bound by the same telephone/video hearing-format rule when it orders further proceedings under RCW 50.32.080's "further proceedings... before the appeal tribunal" clause was not separately verified; that clause returns the matter to the appeal tribunal (OAH) rather than having the CRO hold its own hearing, which is why C1 is written as governing the OAH stage.