Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.28

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.28.050

Time limitation for filing application or enforcing claim for injury

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No application shall be valid or claim thereunder enforceable unless filed within one year after the day upon which the injury occurred or the rights of dependents or beneficiaries accrued, except as provided in RCW 51.28.055 and 51.28.025(5).
[ 2007 c 77 s 3; 1984 c 159 s 1; 1961 c 23 s 51.28.050. Prior: 1927 c 310 s 6, part; 1921 c 182 s 7, part; 1911 c 74 s 12, part; RRS s 7686, part.]

Notes:

Implementation—2007 c 77: See note following RCW 51.28.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case: Kovacs v. Department of Labor & Industries
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kovacs v. Department of Labor & Industries (2016) wash · cites it 6× “” RCW 51.28.050. Generally, the day of injury is excluded from time calculations.”
Kovacs v. Department of Labor & Industries (2015) washctapp · cites it 38× “DLI contends RCW 51.28.050 bars claims not filed within one year from the date of injury, arguing Mr.”
Sheila Larose, Appellant/cross-resp v. King County And Pda, Respondent/cross-appellants (2019) washctapp “RCW 51.28.050 (injury); RCW 51.28.055 (disease).”
Wilbur v. Department of Labor & Industries (1984) washctapp · cites it 3× “020, in a timely manner, RCW 51.28.050; or (2) whether the Department's failure to perform that statutory duty provides the basis for an injured worker's assertion that the Department is estopped from refusing to consider the *559 merits of a subsequently, but otherwise…”
Rector v. Department of Labor & Industries (1991) washctapp · cites it 3× “Rector appealed the Department's decision to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (the Board) which affirmed the Department, concluding in its October 18, 1989, decision that Rector's 1986 claim was not timely filed pursuant to RCW 51.28.050. That statute reads as follows:…”
Rabey v. Department of Labor (2000) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 51.28.050; see Beels v. Department of Labor & Indus.”
Magee v. Rite Aid (2012) washctapp · cites it 2× “” RCW 51.28.050. An occupational disease claim must be filed “within two years following the date the worker had written notice from a physician or a licensed advanced registered nurse practitioner.”
Agency Budget Corp. v. Washington Insurance Guaranty Ass'n (1980) wash “2d 567 (1952); RCW 51.28.050. A right may be created upon the happening of some precipitating event, but failure to file a timely claim is no more than a limitation on the enforcement of that right.”
Magee v. Rite Aid (2008) washctapp · cites it 2× “7 ¶17 RCW 51.28.050 mandates that a worker must file an application for benefits within one year of the date an injury occurred in order to receive compensation under the act.”
Roth v. Kay (1983) washctapp “1 The claim was not filed within 1 year of the injury as required by RCW 51.28.050 so the Department denied Roth's application to reopen when he aggravated his back condition in June 1974.”
Elliott v. Department of Labor & Industries (2009) washctapp ““Injury” means “a sudden and tangible happening, of a traumatic nature, producing an immediate or prompt result, and occurring from without, and such physical conditions as result therefrom.” RCW 51.08.100. ¶11 A claim for benefits for an occupational disease, in contrast to an…”
Wagner v. Washington State Public Employees' Retirement Board (1977) washctapp · cites it 2× “The word "injury" is not defined by the retirement statute, so to determine legislative intent, reference must be made to interpretations of the statute of limitations under the workmen's compensation act.”
Show all 29 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.