Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 287
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.420 (2026)

Written notice of injury to be given to employer

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  287.420.  Written notice of injury to be given to employer — exceptions. — No proceedings for compensation for any accident under this chapter shall be maintained unless written notice of the time, place and nature of the injury, and the name and address of the person injured, has been given to the employer no later than thirty days after the accident, unless the employer was not prejudiced by failure to receive the notice.  No proceedings for compensation for any occupational disease or repetitive trauma under this chapter shall be maintained unless written notice of the time, place, and nature of the injury, and the name and address of the person injured, has been given to the employer no later than thirty days after the diagnosis of the condition unless the employee can prove the employer was not prejudiced by failure to receive the notice.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 3726, A.L. 1965 p. 397, A.L. 2005 S.B. 1 & 130)

Prior revision: 1929 § 3336

(1955) Burden of showing notice of accident was given, or a legal excuse for not giving it, or that employer was not prejudiced by failure to give notice, is on claimant, and failure to establish such fact is fatal to the claim. Brown v. Douglas Candy Company (A.), 277 S.W.2d 657.

(1961) Where the employee's doctor called the employer within thirty days after the alleged accident and advised the employer's personnel director of the nature and scope of the injury and the fact that hospitalization was necessary, such conversation constituted notice to the employer within the meaning of the statute. Lawson v. Vendo Co. (A.), 353 S.W.2d 113.

(1962) Commission did not act in excess of its jurisdiction in giving award to claimant who failed to give written notice of injury to employer where commission found that employer had received actual notice and was not prejudiced by failure.  Manning v. Manor Baking Co. (A.), 356 S.W.2d 505.

(1968) There is no provision in this statute exempting a minor from the requirement to give written notice to the employer of the accident. Klopstein v. Schroll House Moving Co. (A.), 425 S.W.2d 498.

(1972) Employee's contention that affirmative defense of failure of employer to give statutory notice of injury was waived by employer's failure to plead such defense in answer overruled since denial by the employer-insurer that they had been given statutory notice of injury made of record in the prehearing proceeding was a virtual and de facto amendment of their answer so as to raise that defense as a justiciable and controverted issue. Snow v. Hicks Brothers Chevrolet, Inc. (A.), 480 S.W.2d 97.

(1972) Where employer received timely written notice of injury to employee from employee's physician, employee's claim for compensation, although filed more than one year after last payment of compensation, was not barred since employer's failure to file report of injury until after claim for compensation had been filed tolled the running of limitations against employee. Snow v. Hicks Brothers Chevrolet, Inc. (A.), 480 S.W.2d 97.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1955–2023 · leading case: Sell v. Ozarks Med. Ctr., 333 S.W.3d 498 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sell v. Ozarks Med. Ctr., 333 S.W.3d 498 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 52× “Employer claims that the Commission’s finding that Employer was not prejudiced by Claimant’s failure to give written notice as required by section 287.420 because it had actual notice of Claimant’s injury was against the weight of the evidence and misapplied the law in failing…”
Allcorn v. Tap Enter., Inc., 277 S.W.3d 823 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 49× “August 8, 2006: Employer filed its Answer to Claim for Compensation, raising as a defense Claimant’s failure to give notice to Employer and Insurer of his alleged accidental or work-related injury, as claimed, and as required in Section 287.420, RSMo Cum.Supp.2005. September 25,…”
DeRousse v. PPG Indus., Inc., 598 S.W.2d 106 (Mo. 1980). · cites it 39× “The employer interposed as defenses that the claim was barred under § 287.420, RSMo 1978, because the claimant had not personally given the employer the required written notice of injury, and that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations provided in § 287.”
State Ex Rel. KCP & L Greater Missouri Operations Co. v. Cook, 353 S.W.3d 14 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 10× “2, RSMo 2000 (providing for recovery of payments made to person eligible for public assistance for occupational disease); § 287.”
Endicott v. Display Tech., Inc., 77 S.W.3d 612 (Mo. 2002). · cites it 8× “By section 287.420, an employer must receive notice of an injury, for compensation proceedings to be maintained.”
Miller v. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n, 287 S.W.3d 671 (Mo. 2009). · cites it 6× “Miller reported the injury to MHTC, as required by section 287.420, RSMo Supp.2005. [1] MHTC denied compensation, finding the injury was not work-related.”
Snow v. Hicks Bros. Chevrolet, Inc., 480 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 25× “Appellants concede that respondent employee suffered a compensable injury on July 13, 1967, but have contended that a claim for compensation may not be maintained because of the employee’s failure to give the employer written notice of the time, place and nature of the injury as…”
Michael Brune, Claimant/Respondent v. Johnson Controls, a/k/a Hoover Universal, Inc., Emp./Appellant., 457 S.W.3d 372 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 11× “063 RSMo 2000 1 because Claimant’s work for Employer did not expose him to the hazards of an occupational disease and (2) applying the law regarding notice of an occupational disease to an employer under § 287.420 RSMo Supp. 2005. We affirm. 2 Factual Background Claimant worked…”
Parrott v. HQ, INC., 907 S.W.2d 236 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 11× “” The Employer’s amended answer denied Claimant’s allegations and pled affirmatively that his claim was barred for his failure to give timely written notice to the Employer regarding the accident as required by § 287.420. 2 At the hearing before the ALJ, Claimant’s testimony…”
Soos v. Mallinckrodt Chem. Co., 19 S.W.3d 683 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 13× “The Commission affirmed, with a separate opinion, the award and decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denying compensation for claimant’s injury because claimant did not provide employer with timely notice, as required by Section 287.420 RSMo (1994). Claimant contends…”
Elgersma v. DePaul Health Ctr., 829 S.W.2d 35 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 14× “Claimant, Lisa Ann Elgersma, appeals from an order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) affirming a decision of the Administrative Law Judge (AU) which denied claimant an award on her claim for worker’s compensation because she failed to give notice of…”
Prater v. Thorngate, Ltd., 761 S.W.2d 226 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 7× “Section 287.420, RSMo 1986, provides as follows: No proceedings for compensation under this chapter shall be maintained unless written notice of the time, place and nature of the injury .”
Show all 80 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.