Curing Washington's Occupational Disease Statute: Dennis v. Department of Labor and Industries
| Publication year | 1988 |
I. Introduction(fn1)
Under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act,(fn2) a disabled worker is eligible to receive disability benefits(fn3) if the worker's disability arises from what can either be defined as a work-related injury(fn4) or an occupational disease.(fn5) Because of these definitions, Washington's treatment of work-related disability claims is unique in comparison to the differing approaches taken by other states.(fn6) In most other states, the definitions of injury and occupational disease overlap and dovetail, thereby allowing all work-related disabilities to fall into one of the two categories.(fn7) In Washington, however, the injury and occupational disease statutes have been so narrowly interpreted that until very recently there existed a gap in workers' compensation coverage.(fn8) Into this gap between compensable injuries and compensable occupational diseases fell two kinds of work-related disabilities that the Department of Labor and Industries(fn9) would not cover: (1) disability caused by work-related repetitive trauma(fn10) and (2) disability caused by an occupational disease aggravation of an ordinary disease of life or nonworkrelated disease.(fn11)
Recently, in
This Note focuses on the current state of occupational disease coverage under the workers' compensation system in Washington, and will review the legislative history,(fn20) the administrative interpretation,(fn21) and the judicial development of the occupational disease law.(fn22) Further, after setting forth the broad policy goals behind the Industrial Insurance Act(fn23) and outlining Washington's occupational disease statute,(fn24) this Note will conclude with a discussion of the supreme court's analytical framework for a fair, workable, and uniform method for adjudicating occupational disease claims in Washington.(fn25)
II. The Legislative Development of Industry and Occupational Disease Law in Washington State
Like other states,(fn26) Washington enacted its first workers' compensation legislation in an effort to ameliorate problems spawned by the burgeoning industrial revolution.(fn27) Among these problems were the cost to society of the increasing number of common law tort actions brought against employers by injured employees and the uncertainty of the worker's remedy.(fn28) Given the ever increasing number of work-related injuries occurring as Washington became industrialized, the courts were unable to efficiently provide civil tort remedies for injured workers. Moreover, when judgments were given, the tortfeasor-employers merely attempted to pass on the cost of the judgment to consumers. The point of workers' compensation was not only to quickly and surely compensate injured workers, but to do so as economically as possible. Through industrial insurance, the cost could be spread among the employees and employers, with high-risk industries paying more for coverage than low-risk industries, thereby minimizing the externalization of the cost of work-related injuries. When the Industrial Insurance Act was passed in 1911, occupational diseases were not covered;(fn29) disability compensation was only provided for workers with disabilities caused by "an injury resulting from some fortuitous event as distinguished from the contraction of disease."(fn30) Under the law at that time, a worker who became disabled after being poisoned by toxic fumes was deemed to have suffered a compensable injury.(fn31) However, a different worker who was exposed to similar toxic fumes and thus weakened to the extent that he contracted tuberculosis (which resulted in a disability) was held not to have suffered a compensable injury.(fn32) This definition of "injury" prevailed until 1927, when the legislature passed the prototype of the current injury statute, which defines "injury" as "a sudden and tangible happening of a traumatic nature, producing an immediate or prompt result. . . ."(fn33)
By the late 1920s it was common knowledge that certain diseases are peculiar to a given occupation and are brought about by exposure to certain harmful conditions that are constantly present, and to which all workmen in the occupation are continually exposed.(fn34) However, the 1927 amendment to the Industrial Insurance Act failed to extend coverage to occupational diseases.(fn35) In order to have any hope of recovery, workers disabled by such diseases were forced to bring personal injury suits against their employers. Consequently, the Washington courts had yet another tort crisis to deal with.(fn36) At this time, the courts allowed recovery solely to workers whose diseases were "peculiar to their occupations."(fn37) This requirement prevented the extension of liability to the employers for the everyday ailments and communicable diseases contracted by their workers.(fn38) Faced with an ever-increasing number of such suits, in 1937 the legislature extended workers' compensation coverage to include occupational disease.(fn39) This gave employers immunity from actions filed by disabled workers who were pleading common law negligence.(fn40)
In that first occupational disease statute,(fn41) the legislature provided for "compensation for disability or death caused by any one of a list of 21 specified diseases if acquired in certain employments specified for each disease."(fn42) For example, the legislature specified that anthrax was considered an occupational disease (only if contracting it resulted in disability) of handlers of wools, hair, hides, bristles, or skins.(fn43) That first occupational disease statute did not stand unchanged for long. The realities of the workplace, where a multitude of disability-causing occupational diseases could be contracted under an endless variety of working conditions, soon made it apparent that the list of compensable occupational diseases was inadequate. In response, the legislature followed the lead of other state legislatures(fn44) and in 1941 exchanged the finite enumerated scheme for a general definition of "occupational disease."(fn45) When drafting the new statute, the legislature expressly considered and rejected the "peculiar to the occupation" language that had been used by Washington courts prior to the passage of the first occupational disease statute.(fn46) Instead, the legislature identified occupational disease as "such disease or infection as arises naturally and proximately out of extra-hazardous employment."(fn47) The definition of "occupational disease" remains essentially the same today.(fn48)
III. The Administrative Interpretation of Industrial Occupational Disease Law In Washington State
When processing timely claims for disability benefits, the Department of Labor and Industries first determines whether a particular disability is the result of an injury and if not, then it determines whether the disability is the result of an occupational disease.(fn49)
An injury will not be covered unless it can be characterized as evidencing the following five elements (inherent in the injury statute):(fn50) "(1) an event at a particular point in time, (2) a traumatic event, (3) an event which produces something immediately or within a brief period of time, (4) something occurring from outside the body, and (5) the presence of a physical condition resulting from that event."(fn51) This matter-of-fact interpretation of the injury statute effectively limits injury coverage to accidental injuries, such as the situation when the proverbial tree falls on a worker's head.(fn52) The harshness of this narrow coverage is lessened to the degree that the administrators of the workers' compensation system recognize the common law tort principle that "an employer takes an employee as he finds him."(fn53) Thus, if a work-related injury aggravates or "lights up" a preexisting condition, the disabled worker still will be entitled to full benefits.(fn54) In an injury aggravation case, it makes no difference whether the underlying condition is or is not work-related.(fn55)
If a disability is not an injury or the result of one, the Department of Labor and Industries will determine whether the disability can be categorized as an occupational...
To continue reading
Request your trial