(dissenting) — In Washington, an industrial injury does not have to arise out of employment to be compensable, it need merely occur while the worker is in the course of employment:
*281"Washington is one of a few states which do not have the "arising out of employment” requirement in their injury statutes. 1 A. Larson § 6.10, at 3-2. Instead, our statutory scheme in general requires that the injury occurred while the worker was within the "course of employment” when injured. RCW 51.32.010. Thus, under our Act, an injury need not "arise out of employment” to be compensable.
Dennis v. Department of Labor & Indus., 109 Wn.2d 467, 480, 745 P.2d 1295 (1987) (quoting Tilley v. Department of Labor & Indus., 52 Wn.2d 148, 155, 324 P.2d 432 (1958)). "And it is not necessary that at the time the injury is sustained he be doing the work on which his compensation is based, or that the event be within the time limits on which industrial insurance premiums or assessments are paid.” Gordon v. Arden Farms Co., 53 Wn.2d 41, 45, 330 P.2d 561 (1958) (citations omitted); see also Tilley, 52 Wn.2d 148 (injuries suffered during horseplay between tasks recoverable).
Mr. Johnson was assigned to his home as his workplace. He was directed as follows:
While at home, you are:
1. to remain available for contact by phone or in person at all times during your scheduled work shift;
2. to perform no department work unless specifically assigned by your supervisor; and,
3. to contact no one employed at Cedar Creek Corrections Center during their regularly assigned shift without prior approval from your supervisor. If you desire to retrieve belongings or other items, contact your supervisor.
(Emphasis added).
While on reassignment to his home, Mr. Johnson complied with these requirements and was on duty from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. As directed, he performed none of his normal Department of Corrections work while at home. He was thus, "engaged in the performance of the duties required of him by his contract of employment, or *282by specific direction of his employer; or . . .in the furthetance of the employers interest” — meeting the test for "course of employment” set forth in Lunz v. Department of Labor & Indus., 50 Wn.2d 273, 278, 310 P.2d 880 (1957).
If the employer wanted to limit Johnson’s activities or assign him to a specific workstation within the house at which to perform his duty of performing "no departmental work,” it could have done so. The Industrial Insurance Act, RCW chapter 51, is to be construed liberally in order to achieve its purpose of providing compensation to all covered employees injured in their employment, with doubts resolved in favor of the employee. Dennis, 109 Wn.2d at 470.
Applying this standard to the present case, Johnson was at his assigned workplace, during working hours, doing no departmental work, as required. As such, he was within his course of employment.
Review denied at 131 Wn.2d 1025 (1997).