Skip to main content

Zbigniew Laskowski v. State Of Washington, Department Of Labor And Industries

Wash. Ct. App.January 7, 2020No. 53064-3
Defendant WinWashington State Department of Labor and Industries
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

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Unpublished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

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's decision upholding the Department of Labor and Industries' calculation of workers' compensation disability benefits with a social security offset, rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding cost-of-living adjustments and the effective date of the offset.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Zbigniew Laskowski was receiving workers' compensation disability benefits from Washington State's Department of Labor and Industries after a workplace injury. When he also began receiving Social Security disability benefits, the state reduced his workers' compensation payments to avoid duplicate benefits for the same disability. Laskowski challenged this reduction, arguing the state calculated the offset incorrectly and disagreed with when the reduction should begin and how cost-of-living increases should be handled. **What the Court Decided** The Washington Court of Appeals sided with the state agency. The court ruled that the Department of Labor and Industries correctly calculated how much to reduce Laskowski's workers' compensation benefits when he started receiving Social Security disability payments. The court rejected his arguments about the timing of the reduction and cost-of-living adjustments. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling confirms that Washington State can reduce workers' compensation benefits when someone also receives Social Security disability benefits for the same injury. Workers should understand that receiving both types of benefits simultaneously may result in lower total payments than expected, as the state will offset one against the other to prevent duplicate compensation.

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

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.