Skip to main content

Harman v. Department of Labor & Industries

Wash. Ct. App.May 30, 2002No. No. 20247-0-IIICited 6 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Schultheis, Sweeney
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 Department of Labor & Industries prevailed on appeal. The court reversed the trial court's decision and held that equitable principles do not support waiving the one-year statutory filing deadline for workers' compensation claims, affirming that Harman's late filing was jurisdictionally barred.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** A worker named Harman filed a workers' compensation claim with Washington's Department of Labor & Industries more than one year after his workplace injury occurred. Washington state law requires workers to file these claims within one year of their injury. Harman argued that special circumstances should excuse his late filing, asking the court to waive the deadline based on fairness principles. **What the Court Decided** The court ruled against Harman and sided with the Department of Labor & Industries. The appeals court reversed an earlier decision that had been favorable to Harman, stating that the one-year deadline is absolute and cannot be waived, even when it might seem unfair. The court determined that Harman's late filing meant they had no authority to hear his case at all. **Why This Matters for Workers** This decision emphasizes how strictly Washington courts enforce workers' compensation filing deadlines. Workers who are injured on the job must file their claims within exactly one year, with very limited exceptions. Even compelling personal circumstances typically won't excuse a late filing. Workers should prioritize filing their workers' compensation claims promptly after any workplace injury to protect their rights to benefits and medical coverage.

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.