Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Washington calls Hanford presumption suit 'moot' weeks before SCOTUS date

Reprints
Hanford

A new law in Washington that casts a wider net for workers exposed to nuclear materials at the Hanford decommissioned nuclear facility has made a challenge to the original presumption law “moot,” a state regulator says.

The U.S. Supreme Court on April 18 will hear the Biden administration’s challenge to the 2018 Washington state law that presumes the compensability of certain conditions suffered by federal workers at the Hanford nuclear reservation.

Washington State Attorney General Robert Ferguson said the court should dismiss the case as moot after Gov. Jay Inslee enacted new legislation expanding the scope of the presumption to cover all workers at the Hanford site.

Inslee on March 11 signed S.B. 5890, which repeals statutory language that made the presumption of compensability for respiratory disease, beryllium disease and neurological or heart conditions experienced within 72 hours of exposure to fumes or chemicals applicable only to U.S. Department of Energy workers.

“The newly amended law, which no longer differentiates federal contractors from other employers and instead distinguishes among types of facilities, has thus mooted the basis for the complaint of the United States,” Mr. Ferguson argued. “Answering the question presented will be a purely ‘advisory opinion on abstract propositions of law’ relating to a now-defunct statute.”

The Department of Justice is arguing that the presumption created by H.B. 1723 four years ago discriminates against the federal government because it applies only to Energy Department workers and not to those working for the state or for private employers. The federal government is also arguing that the presumption is not sufficiently tailored to apply to employers based on their safety records.

WorkCompCentral is a sister publication of Business Insurance. More stories here.

 

 

 

 

Read Next