Skip to main content

Boeing Co. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.

Wash.April 16, 2015No. 90304-2
Defendant WinThe Boeing Company
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Washington Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and held that self-insured employers are not entitled to second injury fund relief for postpension medical costs under RCW 51.16.120(1); Boeing must pay for the worker's postpension medical treatment.

What This Ruling Means

**Boeing Company Must Pay Worker's Medical Costs After Retirement** This case involved a dispute over who should pay for a Boeing worker's ongoing medical treatment after the employee retired. Boeing, which self-insures its workers' compensation claims, wanted the state's second injury fund to cover the worker's post-retirement medical expenses. Boeing argued that once the worker retired and started receiving pension benefits, the state fund should take over responsibility for continued medical care related to a workplace injury. The Washington Supreme Court disagreed and ruled against Boeing. The court determined that self-insured employers like Boeing cannot transfer responsibility for post-retirement medical costs to the state's second injury fund. Instead, Boeing must continue paying for the worker's medical treatment even after retirement. **Why this matters for workers:** This decision strengthens protections for injured employees at large companies that self-insure. Workers can feel more confident that if they suffer a workplace injury requiring long-term medical care, their employer cannot simply shift those costs to the state once they retire. The ruling ensures that self-insured employers remain financially responsible for the full consequences of workplace injuries, providing better security for workers' ongoing healthcare needs.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

More Rulings in This Case

Other orders and opinions in Boeing Co. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. from the same court.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.