In the case of Mattson v. Department of Labor and Industries of Washington, 1934, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state department. The dispute arose when Mr. Mattson was injured while working for a private company that was contracted by a city to perform public work. He filed an application with the Department of Labor and Industries for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act but it was denied on grounds that he wasn't directly employed by the state or any political subdivision thereof as required by law to be eligible for such benefits. Mr. Mattson challenged this decision arguing that since his injury occurred while performing public work, he should be considered as indirectly employed by a political subdivision (the city) and thus entitled to compensation under said act. The court disagreed with Mr.Mattson’s interpretation stating that only those workers who are directly hired/employed by government entities can claim benefits under this law; not those who are indirectly associated through third-party contracts like him.

In the dissenting opinion for Mattson v. Department of Labor and Industries of Washington, the justice argued that the majority's decision to deny compensation to an injured worker was unjust. The justice contended that the Industrial Insurance Act should be interpreted liberally in favor of workers, not strictly against them as done by the majority. He believed that any ambiguity in law should be resolved with a view towards promoting its purpose - protecting workers from industrial accidents and providing them with compensation when such accidents occur. In this case, he felt it was clear that Mattson had been injured while performing his duties at work; therefore, he deserved compensation under state law regardless if his injury occurred during a lunch break or not since he was still on company premises and could have been called back into service at any moment.