Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 72-448 (2026)

Notice and limitations.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Notice and limitations.

(1) Unless written notice of the manifestation of an occupational disease is given to the employer within sixty (60) days after its first manifestation, or to the industrial commission if the employer cannot be reasonably located within ninety (90) days after the first manifestation, and unless claim for worker’s compensation benefits for an occupational disease is filed with the industrial commission within one (1) year after the first manifestation, all rights of the employee to worker’s compensation due to the occupational disease shall be forever barred.

(2) Unless written notice of death from an occupational disease is given to the employer within ninety (90) days after the death, or to the industrial commission if the employer cannot be reasonably located within ninety (90) days after the death, and unless claim for worker’s compensation benefits for the death is filed with the industrial commission within one (1) year after the death, all rights to worker’s compensation benefits for the death shall be forever barred.

(3) If notice is given to the industrial commission under subsection (1) or (2) of this section, the industrial commission shall promptly give notice to the employer and the surety.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: Bainbridge v. Boise Cascade Plywood Mill, 721 P.2d 179 (Idaho 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bainbridge v. Boise Cascade Plywood Mill, 721 P.2d 179 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 124× “At the hearing before the commission, the employer through its surety moved to have claimant's claim dismissed on grounds that it was barred by the statute of limitations contained in I.C. § 72-448. The commission specifically found that claimant failed to file her claim for…”

Jones v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., 567 P.2d 3 (Idaho 1977). · cites it 23× “But it will affect the question of which limitations period applies under I.C. §§ 72-448 and 72-706. 6 . “72-706. Limitation on time on application for hearing.”

Boyd v. Potlatch Corp., 793 P.2d 192 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 28× “This case requires us to determine the meaning of "manifestation" for purposes of the notice requirement of Idaho Code § 72-448 . Richard Boyd began working in Potlatch's lumber production facility in the fall of 1984.”

Cawley v. Idaho Nuclear Corp., 784 P.2d 890 (Idaho 1989). · cites it 30× “Idaho Code § 72-448 (2) provides, in relevant part: [W]hen disablement or death is the result of exposure to radioactive properties of substances or sources of the ionizing radiation in any occupation involving direct contact therewith, handling thereof, or exposure thereto, or…”

Miller v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 672 P.2d 1055 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 12× “Amalgamated next argues that the commission erred when it held that claimant’s oral notice was sufficient to satisfy the notice and claim requirements of I.C. § 72-448. We disagree. The commission found that immediately following the first diagnosis of hearing loss, the claimant…”

Petry v. Spaulding Drywall, 788 P.2d 197 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 8× “" Thus, the time limitations begin to run, not when the employee is first exposed to the agent which causes the disease, but when the disabling disease which results from that exposure becomes evident.”

Arel v. T & L Enter., Inc., 189 P.3d 1149 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 72-448. A “‘manifestation’ means the time when an employee knows that he has an occupational disease, or whenever a qualified physician shall inform the injured worker that he has an occupational disease.”

Sundquist v. Precision Steel & Gypsum, Inc., 111 P.3d 135 (Idaho 2005). · cites it 2× ““Manifestation” is argued by Precision to only be relevant to the notice and limitations requirements found in I.C. §§ 72-448 and 72-706. In contrast, Precision asserts the time when an occupational disease is “incurred” establishes which employer is liable to the claimant.”

Blackwell v. Omark Indus., 752 P.2d 612 (Idaho 1988). · cites it 2× “— A notice given under the provisions of section 72-701 or section 72-448, Idaho Code, shall not be held invalid or insufficient by reason of any inaccuracy in stating the time, place, nature or cause of the injury, or disease, or otherwise, unless it is shown by the employer…”

Jackson v. JST Mfg., 136 P.3d 307 (Idaho 2006). · cites it 4× “Idaho Code § 72-448 requires one seeking worker’s compensation benefits to notify his or her employer in writing of an occupational disease within sixty days of its first manifestation, or that employee’s rights are “forever barred.”

Alexander v. Harcon, Inc., 992 P.2d 780 (Idaho 2000). · cites it 4× “§ 72-439, Alexander’s claim should still be denied on the basis that the claim was not timely filed under I.C. § 72-448 and Alexander has not met his burden of proving that the hearing loss was causally related to his employment by Harcon.”

Lowery v. Kuykendall (Idaho 2024). · cites it 15× “Did the Commission err in finding that Lowery complied with the notice and limitations requirements in Idaho Code sections 72-448 and 72-706? 5. Did the Commission act beyond its authority by retaining jurisdiction and holding a second hearing after issuing its February 2, 2023,…”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 72-448(1) — 4 cases

Bainbridge v. Boise Cascade Plywood Mill, 721 P.2d 179 (Idaho 1986). “At the hearing before the commission, the employer through its surety moved to have claimant's claim dismissed on grounds that it was barred by the statute of limitations contained in I.C. § 72-448. The commission specifically found that claimant failed to file her claim for…”

Jones v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., 567 P.2d 3 (Idaho 1977). “But it will affect the question of which limitations period applies under I.C. §§ 72-448 and 72-706. 6 . “72-706. Limitation on time on application for hearing.”

Jackson v. JST Mfg., 136 P.3d 307 (Idaho 2006). “Idaho Code § 72-448 requires one seeking worker’s compensation benefits to notify his or her employer in writing of an occupational disease within sixty days of its first manifestation, or that employee’s rights are “forever barred.”

Lowery v. Kuykendall (Idaho 2024). “Did the Commission err in finding that Lowery complied with the notice and limitations requirements in Idaho Code sections 72-448 and 72-706? 5. Did the Commission act beyond its authority by retaining jurisdiction and holding a second hearing after issuing its February 2, 2023,…”

— Idaho Code § 72-448(2) — 3 cases

Cawley v. Idaho Nuclear Corp., 784 P.2d 890 (Idaho 1989). “Idaho Code § 72-448 (2) provides, in relevant part: [W]hen disablement or death is the result of exposure to radioactive properties of substances or sources of the ionizing radiation in any occupation involving direct contact therewith, handling thereof, or exposure thereto, or…”

Miller v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 672 P.2d 1055 (Idaho 1983). “Amalgamated next argues that the commission erred when it held that claimant’s oral notice was sufficient to satisfy the notice and claim requirements of I.C. § 72-448. We disagree. The commission found that immediately following the first diagnosis of hearing loss, the claimant…”

Petry v. Spaulding Drywall, 788 P.2d 197 (Idaho 1990). “" Thus, the time limitations begin to run, not when the employee is first exposed to the agent which causes the disease, but when the disabling disease which results from that exposure becomes evident.”

— Idaho Code § 72-448(3) — 2 cases

— Idaho Code § 72-448(l) — 1 case

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.