This bill amends RCW 51.08.142 and adds a new section to chapter 51.32 RCW to change how posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is treated under workers’ compensation. It creates exceptions to the current rule that mental conditions caused by stress are not occupational diseases by treating PTSD as an occupational disease for specified groups: public firefighters (including certain private-sector firefighters), specified law enforcement officers, public safety telecommunicators, direct care registered nurses, and correctional facility workers. For direct care registered nurses and correctional facility workers the PTSD must develop or manifest after at least 90 consecutive days of fully compensated employment in Washington to qualify. The bill imposes a preemployment psychological-exam condition for the PTSD exception for firefighters and law enforcement officers hired after June 7, 2018, and for public safety telecommunicators hired after June 11, 2020; the exam must be by a Washington-licensed psychiatrist or psychologist and rule out PTSD, but if the employer does not provide the exam the exception applies. PTSD is excluded as an occupational disease when it is directly attributable to disciplinary action, evaluation, transfer, layoff, demotion, termination, or similar employer action taken in good faith. The new chapter 51.32 section creates a prima facie (evidentiary) presumption that PTSD is an occupational disease for covered correctional facility workers employed on a fully compensated basis, subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence. That presumption extends after employment ends for three calendar months per year of fully compensated employment, capped at 60 months post-employment. The bill also changes appeal procedures and cost allocation: if an appeal involving the presumption is decided in the claimant’s favor, the losing party must pay all reasonable appeal costs, including attorneys’ and witness fees; in state fund cases those costs are paid from the accident fund and charged to the claim. The act takes effect January 1, 2026. Important contextual items are missing from the provided text: the specific “department” responsible for rulemaking is not named here; the cross-referenced definition of “direct care registered nurse” (RCW 51.32.395) and the detailed subsections defining firefighters and law enforcement officers (RCW 41.26.030) are not included; and some subsection references appear garbled, so precise statutory cross-references and any other related provisions outside these extracts are uncertain.

If enacted, more workers in high-stress public safety jobs — namely firefighters, certain law enforcement officers, public safety telecommunicators, direct care registered nurses, and correctional facility workers — will find it easier to have PTSD treated as a work-related condition. Correctional facility workers who meet the job and time rules get a legal presumption that PTSD is work-related for claims while employed and for months after leaving (three months for each year worked, up to five years), which makes benefits and medical care more likely and faster to obtain; that presumption can still be challenged but the employer or insurer must prove otherwise. Some newly hired firefighters, officers, and telecommunicators may only lose the employer-based defense to PTSD claims if they were given a preemployment psychological exam by a Washington-licensed psychiatrist or psychologist, so employers face a choice to provide those exams or accept broader claim exposure. Practically this will shift costs and risk: employers and the state’s accident fund should expect more accepted PTSD claims and possibly higher payouts and appeal costs, since a claimant-won appeal requires the losing side to pay attorneys’ and witness fees (in state fund cases those costs come from the accident fund and are charged back to the claim). The bill takes effect January 1, 2026. Important details are missing from the excerpt, including which department must adopt related rules, the full definitions for some job categories, and what exactly “employed on a fully compensated basis” means, so some administrative and eligibility questions remain uncertain.