Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.16.040 (2026)

Occupational diseases

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The compensation and benefits provided for occupational diseases shall be paid and in the same manner as compensation and benefits for injuries under this title.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 289 s 83; 1961 c 23 s 51.16.040. Prior: 1959 c 308 s 12; 1941 c 235 s 2; Rem. Supp. 1941 7679-1.]

Notes:

Effective dates—Severability—1971 ex.s. c 289: See RCW 51.98.060 and 51.98.070.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1988–2020 · leading case: Kilpatrick v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 915 P.2d 519 (Wash. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kilpatrick v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 915 P.2d 519 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 6× “Instead, years after the original asbestos-related condition, each worker suffered the onset of an entirely different disease with its own set of symptoms and treatment. The Department also asserts that using the later manifestation date violates the statutory provision…”
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Tri, 814 P.2d 629 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 3× “Weyerhaeuser then points to the RCW 51.16.040 requirement that [t]he compensation and benefits provided for occupational diseases shall be paid and in the same manner as compensation and benefits for injuries under this title.”
Harry v. Buse Timber & Sales, Inc., 201 P.3d 1011 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 3× “180 (1988); RCW 51.16.040. The first occupational diseases covered by the IIA were gradual onset injuries caused by cumulative trauma.”
Mason v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 271 P.3d 381 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “” Similarly RCW 51.16.040 requires that workers who have an occupational disease be compensated and paid “in the same manner” as workers with employment injuries.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Landon, 814 P.2d 626 (Wash. 1991). “We hold that for claims filed prior to July 1, 1988, workers' compensation benefits for occupational diseases must be calculated as of the date the worker's *124 disease manifested itself, not the date of the worker's last exposure to the harmful materials.”
Pollard v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 123 Wash. App. 506 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “As DLI correctly points out, RCW 51.16.040 tends to support our conclusions here.”
Mccarthy v. Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 759 P.2d 351 (Wash. 1988). “Although the exclusive remedy provisions refer only to injuries, when occupational diseases were made compensable, the Act became the exclusive remedy for employees against their employers for such diseases.”
Pollard v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 98 P.3d 545 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “As DLI correctly points out, RCW 51.16.040 tends to support our conclusions here.”
Harry v. Buse Timber & Sales, Inc., 201 P.3d 1011 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 3× “¶ 21 Before 1988, the legislature provided merely that disabilities resulting from occupational diseases are compensable in the same manner as those resulting from injuries.”
David White v. Centurylink Inc. & Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “80715-3-I/8 and scientific basis to tie the limitations period to the end of exposure to workplace noise.”
Sandra Witzel v. Dept. Of L&i (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 51.16.040. 2 No. 47045-4-II L&I accepted the claim, determined a manifestation date, and issued an order setting Witzel’s wage rate at $4,928 per month.”
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.