Analysis

Topic: Workers' Compensation Law Changes in Benefit Eligibility
Sponsor: Representative Marc Shulman
Committee: Employment Relations, Training and Safety
Date Introduced: June 21, 2000
Date of Analysis: July 24, 2000

Position: The Department of Consumer and Industry Services supports this bill in principle (see HB 5914).

Problem/Background:
During 2000, the supreme court issued several opinions regarding the interpretation of the Workers' Disability Compensation Act relating to reasonable employment (favored work). This bill was introduced to address the concerns of the employer community as a result of these opinions by the court.

Description of Bill:
HB 5916 would amend section 301(5)(a) to establish that an offer of reasonable employment must only remain open for a reasonable period of time. After passage of this time period the injured worker would forfeit their weekly wage loss benefits permanently.

HB 5916 would also forfeit the injured worker's weekly wage loss benefits if the worker voluntarily quit the reasonable employment or was terminated for "just cause" during the first 100 weeks after performing reasonable employment. This would put into the statute the same language provided in chapter 4 of the act, and relied upon in previous case law before the supreme court overturned it.

Arguments For:
The pro arguments are from the business community in reaction to the recent opinions of the supreme court. They argue that they can not keep a job offer open indefinitely for the injured worker, and would have to hire someone else for the position. They support permanent forfeiture of weekly wage loss benefits when the worker is discharge for just cause or voluntarily quits work.

The business community has also complained that when an injured worker is performing favored work during the first 100 weeks, they can not discharge the worker without having to pay workers' compensation benefits. This has resulted in a double standard being imposed on the employers, and favors injured workers over non-injured workers at the same employer.

Arguments Against:
The con position would be from labor and trial lawyers. They believe that a worker who quits work voluntarily or is fired for just cause should be entitled to weekly wage loss benefits as long as the injured worker is disabled. The worker is at a disadvantage in the labor market as a result of their physical or mental restrictions.

Supporters/Opponents:
Supporters- business community
Opponents- labor and trial lawyers

Fiscal Information: There would be no fiscal liability on the department.

Economic Impact: There would be no economic impact on the department except for workers' compensation claims filed by department employees.

Administrative Impact: There would not be a need to promulgate administrative rules for these statutory changes.