The state of Washington on March 22 asked a federal judge to rule in its favor without going to trial in the Hanford Site workers’ compensation lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice in December.
The Justice Department sued the state in U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington, saying a new state law that increases the likelihood of approval for state workers’ compensation claims for Hanford contractor workers violates the U.S. Constitution.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department filed a motion for summary judgment, asking U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian to declare the new law unconstitutional. Washington state last week then filed a counterclaim for summary judgment in its favor.
A hearing is set for May 8. The judge could end the lawsuit by upholding the state law as constitutional, by overturning the law as unconstitutional, or by ruling the lawsuit should proceed to trial.
The law took effect June 8. The federal government claims it violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by attempting to regulate the federal government.
The state of Washington argued in its motion for summary judgment that the law does not violate the Supremacy Clause because Congress gave states the authority to apply their own workers’ compensation laws to protect employees of federal contractors.
Attorneys for Washington also said the Energy Department voluntarily agreed to be regulated by the state in regard to workers’ compensation claims. Just days before the new law took effect, the Energy Department renewed its agreement allowing it to be self-insured to cover state workers’ compensation claims rather than paying premiums to the state to cover costs of claims.
In its renewal, DOE consented to comply with state workers’ compensation regulations and requirements, which would include the new law, the state said.
The Justice Department claimed that the new state law also violated the Supremacy Clause by discriminating against the federal government. The new law holds the Energy Department to a different standard for contractor employees than other employers in the state, the federal agency said.
The state countered that it had the right to set different conditions for its workers’ compensation programs because conditions for employees vary. “Hanford workers face unique radioactive and chemical hazards found nowhere else in Washington,” the state motion said. “Nothing bars the state from treating employers with different work conditions differently,” it said.
The new state law no longer requires workers for Hanford contractors and subcontractors covered by the Energy Department’s self-insurance for the state workers’ compensation program to prove that many illnesses or injuries were caused by a workplace exposure at the massive cleanup program.
Instead, the state Department of Labor and Industries, which approves or denies claims, must presume that neurological illnesses, respiratory illnesses, many types of cancer, and some additional illnesses are caused by working at Hanford. Workers qualify for the presumption if they spend a single eight-hour shift at a Hanford work area.
The Energy Department may present information showing that illnesses were caused by factors such as lifestyle or non-Hanford exposure. But federal officials say finding evidence of the source of illnesses, some of them occurring decades ago, could be difficult.
The Justice Department has argued that the new law will be costly for federal taxpayers. While no estimate has been made available of the estimated total cost resulting from eased requirements for compensation approval, Hanford officials have said in court documents that claims for cancer and some other illnesses could cost $1 million. The new law appears to cover common illnesses such as strokes, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and asthma, it said.
The state responded that its interest in protecting workers is stronger than any federal economic burden.
