美国最高法院已同意review a Washington state workers' compensation law related to federal contractor employees at the U.S. Energy Dept.’s Hanford nuclear waste cleanup site in the state that could potentially cost the federal government tens of millions of dollars a year for decades.

It also could open the door for similar cases over workers' comp eligibility at federal sites in other states. “The practical consequences are far-reaching,” U.S. government lawyers said in court documents.

2018年华盛顿法律（HB 1723）说，汉福德遗址的任何现在或将来的工人都在第二次世界大战中被高度污染的美国核武器生产综合体，这是一个有权获得任何工人的兼容数百种涵盖疾病之一，而不必证明汉福德在汉福德就业的可能性更大。根据法律，假定这些疾病与现场工作有关。

"Covered diseases and conditions include neurological disease, respiratory disease, beryllium disease, certain cancers and heart problems, if they came about within 72 hours of exposure to fumes, toxic substances, or chemicals at Hanford," say attorneys at Emery Reddy, a Seattle law firm that has handled Hanford workers' comp cases. "Under the 2018 state law, those conditions were presumed to be related to work at the Hanford site unless proven otherwise. Before the law was passed, Hanford employees suffering from an illness had to prove that it was not caused by something else in their lives."

The firm adds that "while exposure to toxic chemicals and radiological exposure are covered conditions for workers compensation, a lack of scientific studies" on the effects of such exposure has made it difficult for certain workers to obtain state benefits.

Taking Sides

The state argues that private contractors operating at Hanford have routinely failed to provide employees with protective equipment and to monitor their exposures to toxic substances. “Their employees often fall ill and are unable to prove the cause of their illnesses,” the state says in stating its case to the Supreme Court. “Washington responded by amending its workers’ compensation laws to help workers at Hanford get benefits, just as the State has done for firefighters, police, and healthcare workers.”

政府认为该法律过于广泛，于2018年在华盛顿州里奇兰的联邦地方法院提起诉讼八月。拜登政府寻求最高法院对该裁决进行审查。

“Any covered Hanford worker—past, present, or future; living or deceased—who worked a single eight-hour shift in a covered area, and thereafter suffers from one of potentially hundreds of covered illnesses, can avail themselves of [the law’s] presumption of entitlement to workers’ compensation,” they argued. HB 1723 applies “for the lifetime” of a covered contract worker and allows reopening of previously denied claims, including by a survivor.

In an appeal last year to President Joe Biden to drop federal opposition, 66 Washington state legislators said the law improves standards for insurance coverage for affected workers.

“Our state residents who suffer from terrible, painful, and debilitating diseases known to be linked to exposure of toxic chemicals were having well-documented difficulties overcoming objections from the federal contractor to access benefits from our state industrial insurance program,” lawmakers said in their letter. Most ill workers are Plumbers and Steamfitters union members in Washington.

政府律师认为，该法律大大扩大了特定类别的联邦合同工人的利益资格，但“大大增加了雇用这些公司的公司的薪酬成本”，并对美国产生了重大不利的财务后果。他们没有解释它将如何增加对联邦承包商的成本。18luck.cub

Coverage can be rebutted by “clear and convincing evidence” such as tobacco use and hereditary factors.

'Impermissable Discrimination'

The government argued that the law violates the U.S. Constitution because it imposes costs on DOE and its contractors not imposed on other employees in the state and because it “directly regulates” the federal government by effectively requiring the department to cover certain ailments including those commonly occurring in the general population, whether or not they were caused by employment at Hanford.

政府的申诉说：“对联邦政府及其承包商的这种不允许的歧视，并声称对联邦政府的直接监管违反了至高无上的条款。”

投诉说，DOE是某些汉福德承包商的雇员的“法定雇主”，该备忘录是与六名当前主要承包商和七个分包商的谅解备忘录，这些雇员雇用了大多数汉福德的10,000名雇员。该文件还涵盖了以前在汉福德联邦政府工作的61名承包商和分包商的雇员。

政府在其论点中说：“自2009年以来，美国能源部已向[理解备忘录]涵盖的汉福德承包商的雇员支付了近1.16亿美元的工人赔偿金。”

DOE pays workers’ compensation costs directly for most contract workers and reimburses other firms for their costs.

“But even if those arrangements were changed so that the relevant private firms bore the costs of HB 1723 without direct federal reimbursement, the statute would still violate the [Constitution] which prohibits discrimination against the United States and those with whom it deals,” the complaint said.

The U.S. argues that under the appeals court decision, any state within its jurisdiction could enact laws that would require workers at federal sites to be eligible for similar benefits.

This “opens the door to discriminatory state legislation targeting other federal facilities throughout the nation’s largest circuit,” federal government attorneys argue, asking the high court to intervene to forestall the “sweeping implications,” of the lower court decision.