Skip to main content

Kustura v. Department of Labor & Industries

Wash. Ct. App.January 22, 2008No. Nos. 57445-1-I; 57446-9-I; 57447-7-ICited 2 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Agid, Baker, Dwyer
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.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's orders, rejecting injured workers' challenges to wage rate calculations and denying their requests for additional interpreter services. The court found that unappealed wage rate orders became final and binding, and that interpreters are required only during legal proceedings, not for communications with counsel or claim administration.

What This Ruling Means

# Kustura v. Department of Labor & Industries - Plain English Summary **What Happened** Injured workers employed by Dependable Building Maintenance and Four Seasons Olympic Hotel challenged how their benefits were calculated. They also requested additional interpreter services to help them communicate about their workers' compensation claims, arguing this was a necessary accommodation. **What the Court Decided** The Court of Appeals sided with the Department of Labor & Industries. The court ruled that once wage rate calculations were finalized and not challenged earlier, they could not be revisited later. Regarding interpreters, the court determined that employers and agencies must provide interpreters only during official legal proceedings—not for routine conversations with lawyers or while handling claim paperwork. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case affects workers with language barriers navigating the workers' compensation system. The ruling means injured workers may need to arrange and pay for their own interpreters during non-legal discussions with their attorneys or when dealing with claim administration. Workers should understand this limitation and seek interpreters early if needed, and should challenge wage calculations promptly rather than waiting.

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

Similar Rulings

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant Win

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.