Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 72-439 (2026)
Actually incurred/nonacute occupational disease.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Actually incurred/nonacute occupational disease.
(1) An employer shall not be liable for any compensation for an occupational disease unless such disease is actually incurred in the employer’s employment.
(2) An employer shall not be liable for any compensation for a nonacute occupational disease unless the employee was exposed to the hazard of such disease for a period of sixty (60) days for the same employer.
(3) Where compensation is payable for an occupational disease, the employer, or the surety on the risk for the employer, in whose employment the employee was last injuriously exposed to the hazard of such disease, shall be liable therefor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Bint v. Creative Forest Prods., 697 P.2d 818 (Idaho 1985).
Bint v. Creative Forest Prods., 697 P.2d 818 (Idaho 1985). “Respondents moved to dismiss pursuant to the 60-day exposure requirement of I.C. § 72-439. A hearing was held on this issue.”
Jones v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., 567 P.2d 3 (Idaho 1977). “§ 72-448(3) 2 because this claim for further compensation was made more than one year after the last payment of compensation by the surety; and (3) I.C. § 72-439 3 because Jones’ disablement did not result within one year after his last injurious exposure to cement.”
The Est. of Kurt Aikele v. City of Blackfoot, 382 P.3d 352 (Idaho 2016). “In setting forth the applicable law, the Commission stated: Under Idaho Code § 72-439 , an employer cannot be held liable for an occupational disease unless such disease is actually “incurred” in that employment.”
Sundquist v. Precision Steel & Gypsum, Inc., 111 P.3d 135 (Idaho 2005). “” Precision focuses on the use of the word “incurred” in the statute. From this Precision argues the fact-finder must determine when an occupational disease is “incurred,” and that this determination is separate and independent from the question of when “manifestation” takes…”
Kinney v. Tupperware Co., 792 P.2d 330 (Idaho 1990). “The distinction between an “acute” and a “non-acute” occupational disease is important because under I.C. § 72-439, a claimant must demonstrate exposure to the hazards of a “non-acute” occupational disease for a period of sixty days for the same employer before liability can…”
Reyes v. Kit Mfg. Co., 953 P.2d 989 (Idaho 1998). “I.C. § 72-439 limits the liability of an employer for compensation due to an occupational disease, other than silicosis, to cases where the disease is actually incurred in the employee’s employment and where disablement results within one year after the last injurious exposure…”
Koch v. Micron Tech., 42 P.3d 678 (Idaho 2002). “At that time she had a preexisting calcific tendonitis in her right shoulder, but it was asymptomatic and did not inhibit her job performance. Her job duties included keeping production equipment and facilities clean and required her to engage in repetitive motions in cleaning,…”
Alexander v. Harcon, Inc., 992 P.2d 780 (Idaho 2000). “Alexander argues that the Industrial Commission should have applied the amended version of I.C. § 72-439 to his case. Alexander’s employer, Harcon Inc.”
Bainbridge v. Boise Cascade Plywood Mill, 721 P.2d 179 (Idaho 1986). “(1) Except in cases of silicosis for which notice of contraction and claim for compensation may be given at any time within the four (4) year limitation provided in section 72-439, unless written notice of the manifestation of an occupational disease shall be given by the…”
Cutsinger v. Spears Mfg. Co., 50 P.3d 479 (Idaho 2002). “2d 592 (1994), and its progeny when it amended Idaho Code § 72-439 in 1997. Nelson required that there be an accident before a preexisting condition, which becomes aggravated, is covered by worker's compensation benefits.”
Peckham v. Producer's Lumber Co., 778 P.2d 797 (Idaho 1989). “*677 On April 6,1987, the Commission entered an order denying Argonaut’s, Mission’s and Alaska Pacific’s motion to dismiss them as defendants on the grounds that I.C. § 72-439, which the movants had cited in support of their motion, does not apply to the question of which of the…”
Boyd v. Potlatch Corp., 793 P.2d 192 (Idaho 1990). “Idaho Code § 72-448 (1) provides: Except in cases of silicosis for which notice of contraction and claim for compensation may be given at any time within the four (4) year limitation provided in section 72-439, Idaho Code, unless written notice of the manifestation of an…”
— Idaho Code § 72-439(1) — 4 cases
The Est. of Kurt Aikele v. City of Blackfoot, 382 P.3d 352 (Idaho 2016). “In setting forth the applicable law, the Commission stated: Under Idaho Code § 72-439 , an employer cannot be held liable for an occupational disease unless such disease is actually “incurred” in that employment.”
Weeks v. Oneida Cnty. (Idaho 2025).
Jobe v. Dirne Clinic / Heritage Health (Idaho 2017).
The Est. of Kurt Aikele v. City of Blackfoot (Idaho 2016).
— Idaho Code § 72-439(3) — 3 cases
Sundquist v. Precision Steel & Gypsum, Inc., 111 P.3d 135 (Idaho 2005). “” Precision focuses on the use of the word “incurred” in the statute. From this Precision argues the fact-finder must determine when an occupational disease is “incurred,” and that this determination is separate and independent from the question of when “manifestation” takes…”
Lowery v. Kuykendall (Idaho 2024).
Jobe v. Dirne Clinic / Heritage Health (Idaho 2017).
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.