TIMELINESS OF CLAIM (RCW 51.29.050; RCW 51.28.055)
Calculation of time
The one-year time limitation for filing claims under RCW 51.28.050 begins to run on the day of injury, not the day after. ....Gwen Carey, 03 13790 (2005) [Editor's Note: The Board's decision was appealed to superior court under Snohomish County Cause No. 05-2-08212-5.]
Child's claim for survivors' benefits
Minority does not toll the time within which a child's application for survivor's benefits under the Industrial Insurance Act must be filed. A claim filed more than a year beyond the day the rights of the beneficiaries accrued is not valid or enforceable and the Board is without authority to excuse, on equitable grounds, an untimely application for benefits. ....Isaias Chavez, Dec'd., 85 2867 (1987) [dissent] [Editor's Note: The Board's decision was appealed to superior court under Franklin County Cause No.87-2-50284-1.]
Crime victims' compensation
Minority tolls the time period for filing a claim for crime victims' compensation. ....Ben Ramahlo, 85 C025 (1987)
Filing
Where there has been no determination by a court of final jurisdiction applying equitable estoppel to excuse an untimely filing under RCW 51.28.050, the Board will not apply the doctrine to a situation where the worker alleges that the Department employees improperly informed him of the requirements for filing an application for benefits. The Board noted that the facts failed to establish that the inaccurate statements caused injury to the worker, concluding that the failure to timely apply for benefits was due to the worker's own mistake. ....James Neff, 92 2782 (1994) [Editor's Note: The Board's decision was appealed to superior court under Whatcom County Cause No. 94-2-01446-0.]
When the last day for filing a claim falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the claimant has until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday or holiday to file the claim (WAC 296-08-070). ....Freda King, 69,935 (1985) [Editor's Note: To the extent it is inconsistent, King was overruled by In re Gwen Carey, BIIA Dec., 03 13790 (2005).]
A written report of accident completed at the hospital with the assumption that it would be mailed to the Department could not be considered a timely claim for benefits where there was no evidence that the report was mailed to or received by the Department within one year of the date of injury. The hospital was not an agent of the Department in dealing with the worker who had the sole responsibility for timely filing his claim. ....Carl Kinder, 44,967 (1976) [dissent]
A claim is not filed with the Department until it is received by the Department. An accident report mailed within one year of the industrial injury but received by the Department more than one year after the industrial injury is untimely and the claim must be rejected. ....Stan Hall, 36,628 (1971) [Editor's Note: To the extent it is inconsistent, Hall was overruled by In re Gwen Carey, BIIA Dec., 03 13790 (2005).]
Hearing loss
The two-year limitation period for filing a compensable hearing loss claim begins to run on the last day of injurious exposure, not the day after. ….James Scales, 09 10566 (2009)
Occupational disease [after 1984 amendment to RCW 51.28.055]
Because the earliest date that events which could have led to the filing of a claim occurred in December 1984, when the worker was told that she had a non-A/B hepatitis but was not provided a definitive diagnosis because type C had yet to be identified by medical science, 1984 amendments to RCW 51.28.055 apply. ....Sharon Baxter 92 5897 (1994)
Occupational disease [prior to 1984 amendment to RCW 51.28.055]
Compensable disability
The time limit for filing an occupational disease claim does not begin to run until the worker has a compensable disability; that is, until he is temporarily totally disabled, permanently partially disabled or permanently totally disabled. ....Leo Lapierre, 69,044 (1986)
No cause of action for an occupational disease accrues until the worker receives notification from a physician that he has an occupational disease resulting in a compensable disability. A worker who was able to continue working without impairment did not have a compensable disability. The statute of limitations did not begin to run until the worker's condition rendered him temporarily totally disabled, despite the fact that he was earlier advised by his doctor that he had an occupational disease. ....Robert Kutzer, 44,305 (1976) [dissent]
Divisible claims
The failure to file a timely claim for hearing loss does not necessarily extinguish the right to file a claim for hearing loss which develops after the date a physician notified the worker that he was suffering from an occupational disease. The burden is on the worker, however, to establish that the additional hearing loss was caused by occupational exposure occurring after the date of such notification. ....Herbert Lovell, 69,823 (1986)
Although a worker failed to file a timely claim for carpal tunnel syndrome in his right hand, his claim for carpal tunnel syndrome in his left hand was timely since the condition in that extremity only became disabling within one year of the date the claim was filed. ....Richard Olds, 61,534 (1983) [dissent]
Although a worker's claim for hearing loss was not filed within one year of the date he was first advised by a physician that he suffered from an occupational disease, his claim for benefits for the additional hearing loss incurred after that date is not time barred. ....Eugene Burrill, 47,766 (1977) [dissent]
Notification by physician
The one year limitation period for filing a claim for an occupational disease does not commence until the worker is advised by a physician that the worker's employment is the cause of the disease. A statement to the worker that work is bad for his condition is insufficient, as that which is or may be harmful to a condition is not, ipso facto, its cause. ....Radford Angell, 21,334 (1965)
Oral reports in self-insured claims
The Board's decisions in Coston and Craft are overruled to the extent they hold an oral report of injury, made to a self-insured employer within one year of injury, is sufficient to constitute a timely claim. ....Eugene Whalen, 89 0631 (1990) [dissent]
A worker's oral report of injury within one year of its occurrence to his immediate supervisor, followed by the employer's knowledge of the worker's absence, constituted sufficient notice of a claim to the self-insured employer, imposing a duty on the self-insured employer under RCW 51.28.025 to make further inquiry of the worker and to report the injury to the Department. Although a written application for benefits was not filed until after the one year period for filing a claim had elapsed, the claim was considered timely. ....Del Coston, 58,765 (1983) [dissent] [Overruled, In re Eugene Whalen, BIIA Dec., 89 0631 (1990)]
When an employer is self-insured, a worker's oral report of injury to his immediate supervisor and to the company nurse within one year of the injury satisfies the requirements of RCW 51.28.020 and RCW 51.28.050 for filing a timely claim. ....Russell Craft, 54,919 (1980) [dissent] [Overruled, In re Eugene Whalen, BIIA Dec., 89 0631 (1990)]
Physician's certification (RCW 51.28.020)
The one year limitation for filing an industrial injury claim (RCW 51.28.050) refers only to the worker's application for benefits, not the physician's certification. The failure to file the certificate of the physician within one year of the alleged injury does not time-bar the claim. ....Eugene Whalen, 89 0631 (1990) [dissent]
Survivors' benefits
The surviving children's claim for benefits was timely even though filed more than one year after the worker's death since a claim for benefits for the children of a subsequent marriage had been filed within the one year period. The second application for benefits should be treated as an application for rearrangement of compensation based on a change of circumstances pursuant to RCW 51.28.040, and the Department therefore retained continuing jurisdiction under that statute to include the additional surviving children. ....Jackie Davis, Jr., Dec'd.,66,123 (1985)
Survivor's benefits where worker dies of occupational disease
If the worker was never provided with the written notification mandated by RCW 51.28.055 (as amended in 1984), the beneficiary's claim for survivor's benefits is not extinguished by the mere passage of two years from the date of the worker's death. ....Christopher Aalmo, Dec'd.,87 4382 (1989) [dissent][Affirmed Department of Labor & Indus. v. Aalmo, 117 Wn.2d 222 (1991)]