Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 72-704 (2026)

Sufficiency of notice — Knowledge of employer.

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Sufficiency of notice — Knowledge of employer.

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 that he was in fact prejudiced thereby. Want of notice or delay in giving notice shall not be a bar to proceedings under this law if it is shown that the employer, his agent or representative had knowledge of the injury or occupational disease or that the employer has not been prejudiced by such delay or want of notice.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases, 1973–2015 · leading case: Page v. McCain Foods, Inc., 109 P.3d 1084 (Idaho 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Page v. McCain Foods, Inc., 109 P.3d 1084 (Idaho 2005). · cites it 12× “§§ 72-701 through - 703, I.C. § 72-704 becomes the applicable inquiry.”

Murray-Donahue v. Nat'l Car Rental Licensee Ass'n, 900 P.2d 1348 (Idaho 1995). · cites it 18× “Although we find no error in the Commission’s rulings regarding lack of proper notice and prejudice, we vacate the order denying Murray-Donahue’s claim, and remand to the Commission with instructions to make appropriate findings as to whether the employer had “knowledge of the…”

Bainbridge v. Boise Cascade Plywood Mill, 721 P.2d 179 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 8× “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…”

Arel v. T & L Enter., Inc., 189 P.3d 1149 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 6× “Idaho Code § 72-704 provides: Sufficiency of notice — Knowledge of employer.”

Gibson v. Ada Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 211 P.3d 100 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 6× “Gibson argues: (1) that her claim is not barred for lack of notice because Ada County had actual knowledge of her alleged accident or injury for purposes of I.C. § 72-704; (2) that Exhibit 2 of Dr. Heyrend’s November 17, 2005 post-hearing deposition should not have been…”

Neufeld v. Browning Ferris Indus., 712 P.2d 600 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 72-704 estalishes an exception to § 72-701.”

Petry v. Spaulding Drywall, 788 P.2d 197 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 8× “§ 72-704, which preserves Worker's Compensation claims despite untimely notice of the accident to the employer where the employer has actual notice, shows a legislative intent that statutory time limits should not be fatal to claims where the employer has actual notice and is…”

Brooks v. Stand. Fire Ins., 793 P.2d 1238 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 4× “Idaho Code § 72-704 states in pertinent part, Want of notice or delay in giving notice shall not be a bar to proceedings under this law if it is shown that the employer, his agent or representative had knowledge of the injury or occupational disease or that the employer has not…”

Taylor v. Soran Restaurant, Inc., 960 P.2d 1254 (Idaho 1998). · cites it 2× “” I.C. § 72-704. Thus, whether Taylor’s claim is barred by I.”

Jackson v. JST Mfg., 136 P.3d 307 (Idaho 2006). · cites it 6× “He contends he overcame his burden to show that his untimely notice of injury did not prejudice his employer, as an untimely notice is presumed to do per I.C. § 72-704. We do not agree, and we affirm.”

McCoy v. Sunshine Mining Co., 551 P.2d 630 (Idaho 1976). · cites it 4× “Under I.C. § 72-704, 2 want of notice is not a bar to proceedings to establish a claim under the workman’s compensation act if the employer, his agent or representative had actual knowledge of the accident or injury, or was not prejudiced by the lack of notice.”

Blackwell v. Omark Indus., 752 P.2d 612 (Idaho 1988). · cites it 2× “§ 72-701; and that Omark did not have actual knowledge of an injury within the meaning of I.C. § 72-704. 2 Accordingly, the commission further concluded that *13 Blackwell’s claim was barred by I.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

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.