Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.142 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 2034-S2.SL) ***
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the department shall adopt a rule pursuant to chapter 34.05 RCW that claims based on mental conditions or mental disabilities caused by stress do not fall within the definition of occupational disease in RCW 51.08.140.
(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) and (c) of this subsection, the rule adopted under subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to occupational disease claims resulting from posttraumatic stress disorders of firefighters as defined in RCW 41.26.030(17) (a), (b), (c), and (h) and firefighters, including supervisors, employed on a full-time, fully compensated basis as a firefighter of a private sector employer's fire department that includes over fifty such firefighters, and law enforcement officers as defined in RCW 41.26.030(19) (b), (c), and (e), and public safety telecommunicators who receive calls for assistance and dispatch emergency services.
(b) For firefighters as defined in RCW 41.26.030(17) (a), (b), (c), and (h) and firefighters, including supervisors, employed on a full-time, fully compensated basis as a firefighter of a private sector employer's fire department that includes over fifty such firefighters, and law enforcement officers as defined in RCW 41.26.030(19) (b), (c), and (e) hired after June 7, 2018, and public safety telecommunicators hired after June 11, 2020, (a) of this subsection only applies if the firefighter or law enforcement officer or public safety telecommunicators, as a condition of employment, has submitted to a psychological examination administered by a psychiatrist licensed in the state of Washington under chapter 18.71 RCW or a psychologist licensed in the state of Washington under chapter 18.83 RCW that ruled out the presence of posttraumatic stress disorder from preemployment exposures. If the employer does not provide the psychological examination, (a) of this subsection applies.
(c) Posttraumatic stress disorder for purposes of subsections (2) and (3) of this section is not considered an occupational disease if the disorder is directly attributed to disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, layoff, demotion, termination, or similar action taken in good faith by an employer.
(d) "Public safety telecommunicators" means individuals who receive and respond to telephone or other electronic requests for emergency assistance, such as law enforcement, fire, and medical services, and dispatch appropriate emergency responders.
(3)(a) Except as provided in this subsection, the rule adopted under subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to occupational disease claims resulting from posttraumatic stress disorders of direct care registered nurses as defined in RCW 51.32.395.
(b) The limitation in subsection (2)(c) of this section also applies to this subsection (3).
(c) This subsection (3) applies only to a direct care registered nurse who has posttraumatic stress disorder that develops or manifests itself after the individual has been employed on a fully compensated basis as a direct care registered nurse in Washington state for at least 90 consecutive days.
[ 2023 c 370 s 1; 2020 c 234 s 1; 2018 c 264 s 2; 1988 c 161 s 16.]

Notes:

Effective date—2023 c 370: See note following RCW 51.32.395.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: Sheila Larose, Appellant/cross-resp v. King Cnty. & Pda, Respondent/cross-appellants, 437 P.3d 701 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sheila Larose, Appellant/cross-resp v. King Cnty. & Pda, Respondent/cross-appellants, 437 P.3d 701 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “DLI denied LaRose’s injury claim because it was not filed within a year after the injury occurred and denied an occupational disease claim because LaRose’s condition was not an occupational disease under RCW 51.08.142 and WAC 296-14-300. LaRose appealed DLI’s decision to the…”
Potter v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 289 P.3d 727 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “¶16 Potter further contends de novo review is warranted because the case involves a question of statutory interpretation about whether RCW 51.08.142 and WAC 296-14-300 preclude a claim for multiple chemical sensitivity as a mental condition caused by stress.”
Wheeler v. Catholic Archdiocese, 829 P.2d 196 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “4 Wheeler mistakenly relies on RCW 51.08.142, which requires the Department of Labor and Industries to adopt a rule "that claims based on mental conditions or mental disabilities caused by stress do not fall within the definition of occupational disease in RCW 51.”
Boeing Co. v. Key, 5 P.3d 16 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “However, RCW 51.08.142 and WAC 296-14-300 proscribe claims for occupational diseases based on mental conditions or mental disabilities caused by stress.”
Boeing Co. v. Key, 5 P.3d 16 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “However, RCW 51.08.142 and WAC 296-14-300 proscribe claims for occupational diseases based on mental conditions or mental disabilities caused by stress.”
Elliott v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 151 Wash. App. 442 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “” RCW 51.08.142. The Department adopted WAC 296-14-300 to comply with the legislature’s directive: (1) Claims based on mental conditions or mental disabilities caused by stress do not fall within the definition of an occupational disease in RCW 51.”
Rothwell v. Nine Mile Falls Sch. Dist., 206 P.3d 347 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “While there are no stress-related exclusions for industrial injury claims, RCW 51.08.142 and WAC 296-14-300 expressly provide that "claims based on mental conditions or mental disabilities caused by stress do not fall within the definition of occupational disease in RCW 51.”
Rothwell v. Nine Mile Falls Sch. Dist., 149 Wash. App. 771 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “While there are no stress-related exclusions for industrial injury claims, *780 RCW 51.08.142 and WAC 296-14-300 expressly provide that “claims based on mental conditions or mental disabilities caused by stress do not fall within the definition of occupational disease in RCW 51.”
Sheila M. Larose v. Dli (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 12× “2 Former RCW 51.08.142 (1988). No. 78454-4-1/2 occupational disease.”
Elliott v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 213 P.3d 44 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “" RCW 51.08.142. The Department adopted WAC 296-14-300 to comply with the legislature's directive: (1) Claims based on mental conditions or mental disabilities caused by stress do not fall within the definition of an occupational disease in RCW 51.”
Julie D. Cook-crist, V. Dep't Of Labor (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 10× “Cook-Crist testified that, in 2008, 1 RCW 51.08.142. No. 81325-1-I/2 co-worker Andrea North began routinely screaming, using profanity, and lashing out at her without provocation.”
Frank Deyoung, V. City Of Mount Vernon, & Dept L&i (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 9× “In 2018, the legislature amended RCW 51.08.142 and RCW 51.32.185, both part of the Industrial Insurance Act (the Act).”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.142(1) — 1 case
Sheila Larose, Appellant/cross-resp v. King Cnty. & Pda, Respondent/cross-appellants, 437 P.3d 701 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “DLI denied LaRose’s injury claim because it was not filed within a year after the injury occurred and denied an occupational disease claim because LaRose’s condition was not an occupational disease under RCW 51.08.142 and WAC 296-14-300. LaRose appealed DLI’s decision to the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.142(2)(a) — 2 cases
Frank Deyoung, V. City Of Mount Vernon, & Dept L&i (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “In 2018, the legislature amended RCW 51.08.142 and RCW 51.32.185, both part of the Industrial Insurance Act (the Act).”
Frank Shaw v. Kittitas Valley Fire & Rescue (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
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.