Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.32
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.110 (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 2632.SL) ***
(1) As required under RCW 51.36.070, any worker entitled to receive any benefits or claiming such under this title shall, if requested by the department or self-insurer, submit himself or herself for medical examination, at a place reasonably convenient for the worker. An injured worker, whether an alien or other injured worker, who is not residing in the United States at the time that a medical examination is requested may be required to submit to an examination at any location in the United States determined by the department or self-insurer.
(2) If the worker refuses to submit to medical examination, or obstructs the same, or, if any injured worker shall persist in unsanitary or injurious practices which tend to imperil or retard his or her recovery, or shall refuse to submit to such medical or surgical treatment as is reasonably essential to his or her recovery or refuse or obstruct evaluation or examination for the purpose of vocational rehabilitation or does not cooperate in reasonable efforts at such rehabilitation, the department or the self-insurer upon approval by the department, with notice to the worker may suspend any further action on any claim of such worker so long as such refusal, obstruction, noncooperation, or practice continues and reduce, suspend, or deny any compensation for such period: PROVIDED, That (a) the department or the self-insurer shall not suspend any further action on any claim of a worker or reduce, suspend, or deny any compensation if a worker has good cause for refusing to submit to or to obstruct any examination, evaluation, treatment or practice requested by the department or required under this section and (b) the department may not assess a no-show fee against the worker if the worker gives at least five business days' notice of the worker's intent not to attend the examination.
(3) If the worker necessarily incurs traveling expenses in attending the examination pursuant to the request of the department, such traveling expenses shall be repaid to him or her out of the accident fund upon proper voucher and audit or shall be repaid by the self-insurer, as the case may be.
(4)(a) If the medical examination required by this section causes the worker to be absent from his or her work without pay:
(i) In the case of a worker insured by the department, the worker shall be paid compensation out of the accident fund in an amount equal to his or her usual wages for the time lost from work while attending the medical examination; or
(ii) In the case of a worker of a self-insurer, the self-insurer shall pay the worker an amount equal to his or her usual wages for the time lost from work while attending the medical examination.
(b) This subsection (4) shall apply prospectively to all claims regardless of the date of injury.
[ 2020 c 213 s 2; 1997 c 325 s 3; 1993 c 375 s 1; 1980 c 14 s 11. Prior: 1977 ex.s. c 350 s 50; 1977 ex.s. c 323 s 17; 1971 ex.s. c 289 s 13; 1961 c 23 s 51.32.110; prior: 1917 c 28 s 18; 1915 c 188 s 5; 1911 c 74 s 13; RRS s 7688.]

Notes:

Effective date—2020 c 213 ss 1-3: See note following RCW 51.08.121.
Severability—Effective date—1977 ex.s. c 323: See notes following RCW 51.04.040.
Effective dates—Severability—1971 ex.s. c 289: See RCW 51.98.060 and 51.98.070.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1960–2024 · leading case: Romo v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 962 P.2d 844 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Romo v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 962 P.2d 844 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 5× “RCW 51.32.110 provides in pertinent part: (1) Any worker entitled to receive any benefits or claiming such under this title shall, if requested by the department .”
Andersen v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 967 P.2d 11 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “See RCW 51.32.110. RCW 51.32.110(2). See In re Bob C.”
Anderson v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 64 P.3d 669 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 13× “On appeal, Anderson argues, among other things, that because the Department had already made a decision that he was eligible for vocational benefits, it could not terminate him under the discretionary eligibility statute (RCW 51.”
Walmer v. Dep't of Labor & Dep't of Labor & Indus., 896 P.2d 95 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “RCW 51.32.110. Employers may request medical certification allowing workers to return to work.”
Garcia v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 939 P.2d 704 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “The operative rule is set out in RCW 51.32.110(2): [I]f any injured worker shall .”
Alfredo Suarez, V. Masco Corp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 14× “We hold substantial evidence supports the superior court’s factual findings, and those findings support the superior court’s conclusions that Suarez was required to submit to the examination and lacked good cause to refuse under RCW 51.32.110. Accordingly, we affirm. No.”
Liljeblom v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 356 P.2d 307 (Wash. 1960). · cites it 2× “110, which, so far as material, is as follows: "Any workman entitled to receive compensation under this title shall, if requested by the department, submit himself for medical examination, at a time and from time to time, at a place reasonably convenient for the workman and as…”
Jacobsen v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 110 P.3d 253 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 51.32.110(2). The record shows that Jacobsen’s time loss payments ceased only during the period from October 4, 1990, to October 24, 1991, when the Department closed his claim with a PPD award.”
Terry Longland v. William Scotsman & Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 9× “110 provides that when a worker refuses to submit to a medical examination, obstructs evaluation or examination for the purpose of vocational rehabilitation, or does not cooperate in reasonable efforts at rehabilitation, the Department or the self-insurer, with notice to the…”
Eldina Novalic, V. Peacehealth Sw Wa Med. Ctr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 8× “Former RCW 51.32.110(1) (1997) (Any worker who is entitled to receive benefits under the IIA, “shall, if requested by the department or self-insurer, submit [themselves] for medical examination, .”
Eldina Novalic, V. Peacehealth Sw Wa Med. Ctr., 555 P.3d 445 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 8× “Former RCW 51.32.110(1) (1997) (Any worker who is entitled to receive benefits under the IIA, “shall, if requested by the department or self-insurer, submit [themselves] for medical examination, .”
Jacobsen v. Dep't. of Labor & Indus., 110 P.3d 253 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 51.32.110(2). [3] The record shows that Jacobsen's time loss payments ceased only during the period from October 4, 1990, to October 24, 1991, when the Department closed his claim with a PPD award.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.110(1) — 5 cases
Andersen v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 967 P.2d 11 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “See RCW 51.32.110. RCW 51.32.110(2). See In re Bob C.”
Eldina Novalic, V. Peacehealth Sw Wa Med. Ctr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Former RCW 51.32.110(1) (1997) (Any worker who is entitled to receive benefits under the IIA, “shall, if requested by the department or self-insurer, submit [themselves] for medical examination, .”
Eldina Novalic, V. Peacehealth Sw Wa Med. Ctr., 555 P.3d 445 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Former RCW 51.32.110(1) (1997) (Any worker who is entitled to receive benefits under the IIA, “shall, if requested by the department or self-insurer, submit [themselves] for medical examination, .”
Alfredo Suarez, V. Masco Corp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “We hold substantial evidence supports the superior court’s factual findings, and those findings support the superior court’s conclusions that Suarez was required to submit to the examination and lacked good cause to refuse under RCW 51.32.110. Accordingly, we affirm. No.”
Justin M. Pollard v. Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.110(2) — 14 cases
Romo v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 962 P.2d 844 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “RCW 51.32.110 provides in pertinent part: (1) Any worker entitled to receive any benefits or claiming such under this title shall, if requested by the department .”
Andersen v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 967 P.2d 11 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “See RCW 51.32.110. RCW 51.32.110(2). See In re Bob C.”
Garcia v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 939 P.2d 704 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “The operative rule is set out in RCW 51.32.110(2): [I]f any injured worker shall .”
Anderson v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 64 P.3d 669 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “On appeal, Anderson argues, among other things, that because the Department had already made a decision that he was eligible for vocational benefits, it could not terminate him under the discretionary eligibility statute (RCW 51.”
Jacobsen v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 110 P.3d 253 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 51.32.110(2). The record shows that Jacobsen’s time loss payments ceased only during the period from October 4, 1990, to October 24, 1991, when the Department closed his claim with a PPD award.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.110(2)(a) — 1 case
Alfredo Suarez, V. Masco Corp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “We hold substantial evidence supports the superior court’s factual findings, and those findings support the superior court’s conclusions that Suarez was required to submit to the examination and lacked good cause to refuse under RCW 51.32.110. Accordingly, we affirm. No.”
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.