A. Time for Filing. 1. A claim for benefits under this act, other than an occupational disease, shall be barred unless it is filed with the Workers' Compensation Commission within one (1) year from the date of the injury or, if the employee has received benefits under this title for the injury, six (6) months from the date of the last issuance of such benefits. For purposes of this section, the date of the injury shall be defined as the date an injury is caused by an accident as set forth in paragraph 9 of Section 2 of this title. 2. a. A claim for compensation for disability on account of injury which is either an occupational disease or occupational infection shall be barred unless filed with the Commission within two (2) years from the date of the last injurious exposure to the hazards of the disease or infection. b. A claim for compensation for disability on account of silicosis or asbestosis shall be filed with the
Commission within one (1) year after the time of disablement, and the disablement shall occur within three (3) years from the date of the last injurious exposure to the hazard of silicosis or asbestosis. c. A claim for compensation for disability on account of a disease condition caused by exposure to X-rays, radioactive substances, or ionizing radiation only shall be filed with the Commission within two (2) years from the date the condition is made known to an employee following examination and diagnosis by a medical doctor. 3. A claim for compensation on account of death shall be barred unless filed with the Commission within two (2) years of the date of such a death. 4. If a claim for benefits has been timely filed under paragraph 1 of this subsection and the employee does not: a. make a good-faith request for a hearing to resolve a dispute regarding the right to receive benefits, including medical treatment, under this title within six (6) months of the date the claim is filed, or b. receive or seek benefits, including medical treatment, under this title for a period of six (6) months, then on motion by the employer, the claim shall be dismissed with prejudice. B. Failure to File. Failure to file a claim within the period prescribed in subsection A of this section shall not be a bar to the right to benefits hereunder unless objection to the failure is made at the first hearing on the claim in which all parties in interest have been given a reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard by the Commission. C. Persons under Disability. 1. Notwithstanding any statute of limitation provided for in this act, when it is established that failure to file a claim by an injured employee or his or her dependents was induced by fraud, the claim may be filed within one (1) year from the time of the discovery of the fraud. 2. Subsection A of this section shall not apply to a mental incompetent or minor so long as the person has no guardian or similar legal representative. The limitations prescribed in subsection A of this section shall apply to the mental incompetent or minor from the date of the appointment of a guardian or similar legal representative for that person, and when no guardian or similar representative has been appointed, to a minor on reaching the age of majority. D. A latent injury or condition shall not delay or toll the limitation periods specified in this section. This subsection shall
not apply to the limitation period for occupational diseases specified in paragraph 2 of subsection A of this section. Added by Laws 2013, c. 208, § 69, eff. Feb. 1, 2014. Amended by Laws 2019, c. 476, § 27, emerg. eff. May 28, 2019.
Notes of Decisions
Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 2023 OK 42.
· cites it 12× “85A O.S.Supp.2019, § 69 ¶4 The majority's thorough recitation of the legislative history of the workers' compensation statute of limitations cuts directly against its own interpretation of 85A O.”
Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Paredes, 2023 OK 42, 528 P.3d 772.
· cites it 12× “85A O.S.Supp.2019, § 69 ¶4 The majority's thorough recitation of the legislative history of the workers' compensation statute of limitations cuts directly against its own interpretation of 85A O.”
Obi Holding Co. v. Schultz-butzbach & the Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 2025 OK 55, 579 P.3d 581.
· cites it 15× “ON APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION ¶0 Employer moved to dismiss Employee's claim pursuant to 85A O.S. § 69 MATTER PREVIOUSLY RETAINED FOR DISPOSITION; ORDER OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION VACATED; MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED.”
Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Cellino, 2015 OK 12, 347 P.3d 293.
“The current statute of limitations for filing under the current Administrative Workers' Compensation Act is codified at 85A O.S.Supp.2014, § 69, 2013 Okla.Sess.Laws, ch.”
Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Cellino, 2015 OK 12.
· cites it 3× “The current statute of limitations for filing under the current Administrative Workers' Compensation Act is codified at 85A O.S.Supp.2014, § 69, 2013 Okla.Sess.Laws, ch.”
Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. J & S Exch., Inc., 352 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (E.D. Okla. 2018).
“85A O.S. § 69(A)(3). As Defendant Peavler acknowledges, the statutory immunity afforded to Fry and Defendant J & S remains despite the expiration of the statute of limitations governing her workers' compensation claim.”
White v. 918 Constr., 2023 OK CIV APP 2.
“However, I do not find the process of discovery or depositions to satisfy the specific statutory requirements the legislature enumerated in 85A O.S.Supp.2019, § 69”
Exterran Holdings v. Abonza, 2023 OK CIV APP 33.
“Because the evidence establishes that claimant's dates of disablement and last exposure occurred in 2015, we find his claim for occupational silicosis was filed timely pursuant to 85A O.S. §§ 69 ¶38 As noted by the Commission, the Safety Data Sheet for Black Beauty (black sand)…”
White v. 918 Constr., 2023 OK CIV APP 2.
“I appreciate the majority opinion declining to address the constitutional question if it is not necessary to resolve the appeal before this Court. However, I do not find the process of discovery or depositions to satisfy the specific statutory requirements the legislature…”
Exterran Holdings v. Abonza, 2023 OK CIV APP 33.
“Because the evidence establishes that claimant's dates of disablement and last exposure occurred in 2015, we find his claim for occupational silicosis was filed timely pursuant to 85A O.S. §§ 69(A)(2)(B). ¶38 As noted by the Commission, the Safety Data Sheet for Black Beauty…”
White v. 918 Constr., 524 P.3d 502 (Okla. Civ. App. 2022).
“However, I do not find the process of discovery or depositions to satisfy the specific statutory requirements the legislature enumerated in 85A O.S.Supp.2019, § 69”
Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 69(A)(1): 1 case
Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 69(A)(2)(B): 1 case
Exterran Holdings v. Abonza, 2023 OK CIV APP 33.
“Because the evidence establishes that claimant's dates of disablement and last exposure occurred in 2015, we find his claim for occupational silicosis was filed timely pursuant to 85A O.S. §§ 69(A)(2)(B). ¶38 As noted by the Commission, the Safety Data Sheet for Black Beauty…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 69(A)(3): 1 case
Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. J & S Exch., Inc., 352 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (E.D. Okla. 2018).
“85A O.S. § 69(A)(3). As Defendant Peavler acknowledges, the statutory immunity afforded to Fry and Defendant J & S remains despite the expiration of the statute of limitations governing her workers' compensation claim.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 69(A)(4): 1 case
White v. 918 Constr., 2023 OK CIV APP 2.
“I appreciate the majority opinion declining to address the constitutional question if it is not necessary to resolve the appeal before this Court. However, I do not find the process of discovery or depositions to satisfy the specific statutory requirements the legislature…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 69(B): 1 case
Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 69(B)(1): 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.