Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.140 (2026)
"Occupational disease."
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
"Occupational disease" means such disease or infection as arises naturally and proximately out of employment under the mandatory or elective adoption provisions of this title.
[ 1961 c 23 s 51.08.140. Prior: 1959 c 308 s 4; 1957 c 70 s 16; prior: 1951 c 236 s 1; 1941 c 235 s 1, part; 1939 c 135 s 1, part; 1937 c 212 s 1, part; Rem. Supp. 1941 s 7679-1, part.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 104
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: City of Bellevue v. Raum, 286 P.3d 695 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
City of Bellevue v. Raum, 286 P.3d 695 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “The IAJ concluded that Raum’s heart problems constituted an occupational disease under RCW 51.08.140 4 and it was more probable than not that he suffered heart problems from his fire fighting activities.”
Dennis v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 745 P.2d 1295 (Wash. 1987). “Occupational disease is defined in RCW 51.08.140 as "such disease or infection as arises naturally and proximately out of employment".”
Gorre v. City of Tacoma, 324 P.3d 716 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “¶3 We reverse the superior court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law that (1) Gorre did not have an occupational disease under RCW 51.08.140 based on its improper finding that he failed to prove a specific injury during the course of his employment, (2) Gorre did not…”
Spivey v. City of Bellevue, 389 P.3d 504 (Wash. 2017). “¶23 However, there is a statutory prima facie presumption that melanoma in firefighters is an occupational disease for workers’ compensation purposes. RCW 51.32.”
Sheila Larose, Appellant/cross-resp v. King Cnty. & Pda, Respondent/cross-appellants, 437 P.3d 701 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “” The Department of Labor and Industries (DLI) adopted WAC 296-14-300, which addresses mental conditions and mental disabilities.”
Reese v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 731 P.2d 497 (Wash. 1987). “100, and an additional basis for IIA recovery has been added, see RCW 51.08.140, the Legislature's intent to remedy physical injuries remains untouched.”
Potter v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 289 P.3d 727 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “The Board declined to decide whether multiple chemical sensitivity disorder could ever be an occupational disease, and concluded only that the condition had not been established as an occupational disease as diagnosed in Potter’s case: We are free to reject MCS as an…”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Kinville, 664 P.2d 1311 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “RCW 51.08.140. We hold that claimant's condition fails to qualify as an occupational disease because it did not arise naturally and proximately out of claimant's employment.”
City of Bremerton v. Shreeve, 777 P.2d 568 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “However, the doctors disagreed about whether Shreeve's valve had been abnormal at some point in the progression of her disease, and other aspects of Scheinman's testimony were rebutted by the testimony of one or more of the other doctors.”
Magee v. Rite Aid, 277 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “The IAJ also concluded that as a matter of law, the sexual assaults did not constitute an occupational disease under RCW 51.08.140. ¶10 The proposed decision and order addresses Magee’s claim that she was entitled to benefits as an occupational disease.”
Gorre v. City of Tacoma, 357 P.3d 625 (Wash. 2015). “” RCW 51.08.140. Golfing in Nevada is not naturally or proximately connected to firefighting in Washington.”
Cowlitz Stud Co. v. Clevenger, 141 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2006). “" RCW 51.08.140. [2] In the context of occupational diseases, this court has "follow[ed] the majority of other states and adopt[ed] the last injurious exposure rule.”
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.