Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 72-402 (2026)
Waiting period.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Waiting period.
(1) An injured employee shall not be allowed income benefits for the first five (5) days of disability for work; provided, if the injury results in disability for work exceeding two (2) weeks, income benefits shall be allowed from the date of disability and be paid no later than four (4) weeks from date of disability. Provided, further, that the waiting period shall not apply if the injured employee is hospitalized as an in-patient.
(2) The day on which the injury occurred shall be included in computing the waiting period unless the employee has been paid wages for that day.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1951–1973 · leading case: Christensen v. West, 437 P.2d 359 (Idaho 1968).
Christensen v. West, 437 P.2d 359 (Idaho 1968). “Brown, [11] this Court discussed the "notice" requirement of I.C. § 72-402 as follows: "The requirement that notice of an accident be given is to give the employer * * * timely opportunity to make an investigation of the accident and surrounding circumstances * * *.”
Findley v. Flanigan, 373 P.2d 551 (Idaho 1962). “ A notice given under the provisions of section 72-402 shall not be held invalid or insufficient by reason of any inaccuracy in stating the time, place, nature or cause of the injury, or otherwise, unless it is shown that the employer was in fact misled to his injury thereby.”
Billings v. Sisters of Mercy of Idaho, 389 P.2d 224 (Idaho 1964). “In workmen's compensation, again in the area of public welfare, this Court has refused to apply the discovery doctrine, recognizing that though a statute of limitations, I.C. § 72-402 (formerly I.C.A. § 43-1202) works a hardship in that injury attributable to the accident may…”
Gregg v. Orr, 436 P.2d 245 (Idaho 1967). “Whether these instruments satisfy the statutory requirement of a claim for compensation we need not determine for the reason that the petition for hearing, even if *247 it be construed as a claim for compensation, was not made within one year after the date of the accident as…”
Rivera v. Johnston, 225 P.2d 858 (Idaho 1951). “d his insurance carrier, State Insurance Fund, filed an answer verified by the manager of the Fund and signed by counsel therefor, denying all allegations of the petition; except that deceased was in covered and insured employment, respondent's dependency, decedent's rate of…”
Judd v. Rinelli, 268 P.2d 671 (Idaho 1954). “Respondents, among other defenses, alleged in bar that no claim for compensation because of the death had been made within one year after the death occurred, ■or at all, and that the claim was barred by the provisions of Section 72-402 I.C., and for which reasons respondents…”
Atwood v. State of Idaho Dep't of Agric., 330 P.2d 325 (Idaho 1958). “Atwood and alleged that the failure to file such claim for compensation was a bar to recovery on any claim subsequently filed, and that the present proceedings were barred by the provisions of Section 72-402, I.C. The Industrial Accident Board set the matter for hearing on…”
Garren v. JR Simplot Co., 463 P.2d 558 (Idaho 1969). “, and whether or not Ramona Garren gave proper and timely notice of the accident and filed a claim for compensation as prescribed by I.C. § 72-402. 2 The record reveals that Ramona Garren was employed by the J.”
Scott v. Aslett Constr. Co., 452 P.2d 61 (Idaho 1968). “It is difficult to find prejudice here, since the surety undoubtedly would have refused any request for surgery on the ground that claimant's pain was said to be psychosomatic.”
MATTER OF LOCKARD v. St. Maries Lumber Co., 274 P.2d 995 (Idaho 1954). “Conceding Section 72-402, I.C., is a statute of limitation against a claimant does not conclude the controversy before us.”
Kern v. Shark, 480 P.2d 915 (Idaho 1971). “Claimant assigns error in these findings of the Industrial Accident Board and particularly urges that he met the notice requirements of I.C. § 72-402. We do not reach this argument as to notice since the case must be disposed of on other grounds.”
Facer v. ER Steed Equip. Co., 514 P.2d 841 (Idaho 1973). “No proceedings under this act for compensation for any injury shall be maintained unless a notice shall have been given to the employer as soon as practicable but not later than sixty days after the happening thereof, and unless a claim for compensation with respect to such…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.