Navigating claim compensability for injuries outside the State of Washington
Under the Industrial Insurance Act, workers for Washington employers are entitled to benefits for injuries sustained in the course of employment. Under Washington’s extraterritorial statute, this remains true even if the injury occurs outside the territorial limits of the state. Washington courts have recently placed limitations on the extraterritorial statute.
Generally, under RCW 51.12.120, a worker injured while working outside the State of Washington is entitled to compensation under the Industrial Insurance Act if at the time of injury (1) his or her employment was principally localized in Washington or (2) he or she is working under a contract of hire made in Washington for employment not principally localized in any state. The latter of these two options provides a broad layer of protection for workers injured outside the state; however, Washington courts have made it clear there are notable limitations on this provision. In a recent case, Courtney Perez v. Washington State Dept. Of L&I, & Digital Control Inc., the Washington Court of Appeals provided an important example of the statute’s limitations.
In Courtney Perez v. Washington State Dept. Of L&I, & Digital Control Inc., a worker signed an employment agreement for a company headquartered in Kent, Washington. The worker was promoted to a new role that required him to relocate to Indiana. While working in Indiana, the worker was struck by a motor vehicle and ultimately died from his injuries. The worker’s wife submitted a claim for survivor benefits to the Department of Labor & Industries. The Department denied her claim because the worker was not a Washington worker at the time of injury. The matter was eventually taken to the Washington Court of Appeals. The worker’s wife argued the claim was compensable under Washington extraterritorial statute because the worker’s employment was not localized in any state. The Court noted that a person’s employment is principally localized in (1) a state in which he or she has a place of business regularly worked at, or (2) a state in which he or she is domiciled in and spends a substantial part of work in.
Although claimant’s contract of hire was made in the State of Washington, the Court concluded the worker’s employment was principally localized in Indiana because he was domiciled in Indiana and spent a substantial part of his time working in Indiana at the time of injury. Since the worker’s employment was principally localized in Indiana, the Court reasoned the worker was not entitled to benefits under Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act.
The Perez case limits the significance of whether a contract of hire was made in the State of Washington. Ultimately, the fact finder will look at whether the injured worker’s employment was localized in Washington or in no other state. The reasoning is that if an injured worker’s employment is localized in another state outside of Washington, he or she can recover benefits from that state’s workers’ compensation system.
Navigating the compensability of an injury occurring outside the State of Washington can be tricky. It is important to consult RCW 51.12.120 and an attorney to understand the scope of limitations of Washington’s extraterritorial statute. If you have any questions regarding an injury occurring outside the State of Washington, please feel free to contact me at (503) 412-3105 or .
Posted by Omeed Ghaffari.
