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

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.160 (2026)

Aggravation, diminution, or termination

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1)(a) If aggravation, diminution, or termination of disability takes place, the director may, upon the application of the beneficiary, made within seven years from the date the first closing order becomes final, or at any time upon his or her own motion, readjust the rate of compensation in accordance with the rules in this section provided for the same, or in a proper case terminate the payment: PROVIDED, That the director may, upon application of the worker made at any time, provide proper and necessary medical and surgical services as authorized under RCW 51.36.010. The department shall promptly mail a copy of the application to the employer at the employer's last known address as shown by the records of the department.
(b) "Closing order" as used in this section means an order based on factors which include medical recommendation, advice, or examination.
(c) Applications for benefits where the claim has been closed without medical recommendation, advice, or examination are not subject to the seven year limitation of this section. The preceding sentence shall not apply to any closing order issued prior to July 1, 1981. First closing orders issued between July 1, 1981, and July 1, 1985, shall, for the purposes of this section only, be deemed issued on July 1, 1985. The time limitation of this section shall be ten years in claims involving loss of vision or function of the eyes.
(d) If an order denying an application to reopen filed on or after July 1, 1988, is not issued within ninety days of receipt of such application by the self-insured employer or the department, such application shall be deemed granted. However, for good cause, the department may extend the time for making the final determination on the application for an additional sixty days.
(2) If a worker receiving a pension for total disability returns to gainful employment for wages, the director may suspend or terminate the rate of compensation established for the disability without producing medical evidence that shows that a diminution of the disability has occurred.
(3) No act done or ordered to be done by the director, or the department prior to the signing and filing in the matter of a written order for such readjustment shall be grounds for such readjustment.
[ 1995 c 253 s 2; 1988 c 161 s 11; 1986 c 59 s 4; 1973 1st ex.s. c 192 s 1; 1961 c 23 s 51.32.160. Prior: 1957 c 70 s 38; prior: 1951 c 115 s 5; 1949 c 219 s 1, part; 1947 c 246 s 1, part; 1929 c 132 s 2, part; 1927 c 310 s 4, part; 1923 c 136 s 2, part; 1919 c 131 s 4, part; 1917 c 28 s 1, part; 1913 c 148 s 1, part; 1911 c 74 s 5, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 7679, part.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1952–2025 · leading case: Tollycraft Yachts Corp. v. McCoy, 858 P.2d 503 (Wash. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tollycraft Yachts Corp. v. McCoy, 858 P.2d 503 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 16× “161, § 11 (codified at RCW 51.32.160), imposed an aggregate 150-day limit upon the time which the Department of Labor and Industries (Department) has to consider an application to reopen a workers' compensation claim due to the aggravation of an industrial injury.”
Campos v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 880 P.2d 543 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 21× “Eugene Campos appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department of Labor and Industries, concluding that RCW 51.32.160 is constitutional and upholding the Department’s denial of Campos’s request to reopen his claim for workef s’ compensation benefits.”
Eastwood v. Dep't of Labor, 152 Wash. App. 652 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “Eastwood appealed to the Spokane County Superior Court. ¶9 The superior court reversed the Board’s decision and held that Ms.”
Eastwood v. Dep't, 219 P.3d 711 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “Ms. Eastwood appealed to the Spokane County Superior Court.”
Walmer v. Dep't of Labor & Dep't of Labor & Indus., 896 P.2d 95 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 12× “After Walmer appealed to Superior Court, the Department moved for summary judgment, which was granted.”
Hubbard v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 140 Wash. 2d 35 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 4× “RCW 51.32.160 (emphasis added). *41 The aggravation statute clearly entitles such workers to “proper and necessary medical and surgical services.”
Hubbard v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 992 P.2d 1002 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 4× “RCW 51.32.160 (emphasis added). The aggravation statute clearly entitles such workers to "proper and necessary medical and surgical services.”
Pape v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 264 P.2d 241 (Wash. 1953). · cites it 8× “289 (RCW 51.32.160). Successive appeals from this ruling were made to the board of industrial insurance appeals, the superior court for Skagit county, and to this court.”
Adams v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 905 P.2d 1220 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 4× “The Department also argues, if Adams could be disabled while working, then res judicata principles would prevent the Department from ever terminating his pension, in contravention of RCW 51.32.160. This section, in pertinent part, provides: If aggravation, diminution, or…”
Cascade Valley Hosp. v. Stach, 152 Wash. App. 502 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “But those statements were made in the context of addressing an equal protection challenge to RCW 51.32.160, not the standard of review of a director’s order, and merely clarify that even when acting sua sponte, the director may not grant benefits arbitrarily but must do so…”
Ronald v. Ma'ae, V State Of Wa Dept Of Labor & Indus., 438 P.3d 148 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 11× “RCW 51.32.160 gives a worker the right to file an application to reopen a claim for aggravation of an industrial injury.”
Oestreich v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 822 P.2d 1264 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 7× “He contends (1) the 1988 amendment to RCW 51.32.160 *167 should not apply retroactively to bar his claim; (2) the Department of Labor and Industries (Department) should be estopped from asserting the amended statute as a defense; and (3) the amended statute denies equal…”
Show all 78 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.160(1) — 2 cases
Antonio Padilla v. Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Aloys R. Wegleitner v. Dept Of L & I (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.160(1)(a) — 21 cases
Eastwood v. Dep't, 219 P.3d 711 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Ms. Eastwood appealed to the Spokane County Superior Court.”
Eastwood v. Dep't of Labor, 152 Wash. App. 652 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Eastwood appealed to the Spokane County Superior Court. ¶9 The superior court reversed the Board’s decision and held that Ms.”
Cascade Valley Hosp. v. Stach, 152 Wash. App. 502 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “But those statements were made in the context of addressing an equal protection challenge to RCW 51.32.160, not the standard of review of a director’s order, and merely clarify that even when acting sua sponte, the director may not grant benefits arbitrarily but must do so…”
Felipe v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 381 P.3d 205 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Francisco Soriano v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 442 P.3d 269 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.160(1)(b) — 4 cases
Shafer v. Dep't, 213 P.3d 591 (Wash. 2009).
Shafer v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 166 Wash. 2d 710 (Wash. 2009).
Cathrine Elliott v. Cahill & Hirata Resources (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Zbigniew M. Laskowski v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.160(1)(d) — 3 cases
Francisco Soriano v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 442 P.3d 269 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Zbigniew M. Laskowski v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Asli M. Ali, V. Wa State Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.160(d) — 1 case
Zbigniew M. Laskowski v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.160(l)(a) — 4 cases
Cantu v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 168 Wash. App. 14 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Eastwood v. Dep't of Labor, 152 Wash. App. 652 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Eastwood appealed to the Spokane County Superior Court. ¶9 The superior court reversed the Board’s decision and held that Ms.”
Francisco Soriano v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 442 P.3d 269 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Loushin v. ITT Rayonier, 924 P.2d 953 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.160(l)(b) — 1 case
Leuluaialii v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 279 P.3d 515 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
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.