Workers’ Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis: The Changing Workforce and Workplace

By Thomas A. Robinson, Co-Editor-in-Chief, Workers’ Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis (LexisNexis)

(This article is excerpted from the upcoming 2024 Edition of Workers’ Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis (LexisNexis). Section numbers below refer to the text in that book. To preorder, call Customer Service at 1-800-543-6862, or preorder online here.)

As we approach the mid-point of the third decade of the twenty-first century, the American workplace continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace. The aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with rapid technological advancements and shifting societal expectations, has ushered in an era of profound change in how we work, where we work, and what constitutes work itself.

The post-pandemic landscape has permanently altered our perception of the workplace. While bustling office buildings and factory floors remain integral to many industries, a significant portion of the workforce now operates from home offices or in hybrid arrangements. This shift has not only redefined the physical boundaries of work but has also challenged traditional notions of productivity, collaboration, and work-life balance. As employers and employees navigate this new terrain, questions about workers’ compensation, occupational health, and safety in remote settings have come to the forefront.

Simultaneously, we are witnessing a technological revolution that is reshaping the very nature of work. Artificial intelligence and automation are no longer futuristic concepts but present-day realities transforming industries across the board. From manufacturing to healthcare, from legal services to creative fields, AI is augmenting human capabilities and, in some cases, replacing traditional roles altogether. This transformation brings with it new challenges in workforce training, job displacement, and the very definition of what constitutes a compensable injury in an AI-augmented workplace.

The rise of the gig economy and non-traditional employment continues unabated, presenting unique challenges to our existing labor laws and workers’ compensation systems. As more Americans embrace freelance, contract, and platform-based work, we are forced to reconsider how we protect and compensate this growing segment of the workforce. The lines between employee and independent contractor have blurred, necessitating a reevaluation of our current regulatory frameworks.

Demographic shifts are further complicating the picture. Our workforce is more diverse than ever, spanning four generations, each with its own set of values, expectations, and needs. As Baby Boomers delay retirement, working well into their 60s and 70s, they bring valuable experience but also increased risk of age-related injuries. Meanwhile, Gen Z is entering the workforce with new skillsets and expectations around technology use, work-life integration, and corporate social responsibility. This multigenerational workforce presents both opportunities and challenges in creating safe, inclusive, and productive work environments.

Mental health and well-being have rightfully taken center stage in discussions about workplace health and safety. The recognition of work-related stress, anxiety, and burnout as significant health issues is prompting a reevaluation of how we define and compensate for occupational illnesses. Employers are increasingly acknowledging their role in supporting employees’ mental health, but questions remain about the extent of their liability and responsibility in this arena.

Environmental concerns and the transition to a green economy are also leaving their mark on the workforce. As we grapple with the realities of climate change, new industries are emerging, creating jobs that didn’t exist a decade ago. However, this transition also brings new occupational hazards and health concerns that our current systems may not be fully equipped to address.

In this rapidly changing landscape, the need for continuous learning and skill development has never been more critical. The skills gap continues to widen in many industries, prompting both workers and employers to invest heavily in ongoing education and training. This emphasis on lifelong learning is reshaping career trajectories and challenging our traditional understanding of occupational expertise and job classifications.

As we delve into this year’s edition of Workers’ Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis, we aim to explore these multifaceted changes and their implications for workers’ compensation, occupational health, and workplace safety. Through a collection of timely articles and expert analyses, we hope to provide insights that will help stakeholders navigate this evolving landscape, ensuring that our systems of worker protection remain relevant and effective in this new era of work.

PART I. EXPERT ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

As with previous editions, we have assembled a selection of timely and incisive articles by nationally known legal experts and commentators on a host of interesting topics.

The Changing Workforce and Workplace

§ 2 of this latest annual volume, features a Q&A with Professor Emily A. Spieler, former Dean and Hadley Professor of Law at Northeastern University Law School. Spieler explores the evolving landscape of workers’ compensation in the face of the gig economy and changing workplace dynamics. She discusses challenges in adapting traditional workers’ compensation models to new forms of employment, the impact of technological advancements, and lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Spieler also offers perspectives on benefit adequacy, the future of union involvement, and potential reforms to ensure the system remains relevant and fair in the 21st century.

In § 3, Hon. Susan V. Hamilton examines the potential health impacts of the work-from-home trend. Hamilton is the Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Drawing on a recent study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Hamilton explores how remote work affects health behaviors and mental health outcomes. The article delves into findings that suggest workers who don’t work from home may have better overall health outcomes in areas such as alcohol consumption, nutrition, and mental well-being. Of particular interest is the study’s focus on early career workers and their vulnerability to safety and health risks. Hamilton’s analysis provides valuable insights for employers and policymakers navigating the complexities of remote and hybrid work arrangements.

Christopher Mahon, in § 4, examines a study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine on how nonstandard work arrangements affect workers’ economic well-being, health, and working conditions. Mahon is a LexisNexis Insights Contributing Author. He highlights the study’s findings on lower earnings, reduced benefits, and potential health risks associated with alternative work arrangements such as independent contracting, variable alternative work, contingent employment, and app-based work. The piece also touches on legislative efforts to address these issues and the challenges in creating protections for workers in evolving employment landscapes.

§ 5 sees Mahon offering a comprehensive examination of the seismic changes in work patterns catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing from a study published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Mahon explores how the percentage of Americans working from home increased from 7% in 2019 to 28% by 2023. The article delves into the nuanced impacts of this shift across various industries, demographic groups, and geographical areas, while also discussing its effects on productivity, innovation, and wage patterns. Mahon’s analysis provides insights into the future of work, suggesting that hybrid and remote work arrangements are likely to endure and evolve.

In § 6, Mahon explores a study published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine on responsible development of emerging technologies. The article examines how principles originally developed for nanotechnology can be extended to ensure the responsible development of technologies such as advanced manufacturing, synthetic biology, and artificial intelligence. Mahon highlights the study’s five key criteria for responsible development, including anticipating hazards, assessing worker exposure, and managing occupational risks. The piece also delves into the specific challenges posed by different emerging technologies and the ethical considerations they raise, particularly in the realm of AI.

§ 7 features Mahon’s examination of a study from the University of Toronto on precarious employment in the LGBTQ+ population. This article delves into the unique challenges faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in the workforce, from early life experiences that impact career planning to discrimination in job searches and workplace harassment. Mahon highlights the study’s findings on how these factors contribute to precarious employment within the LGBTQ+ community, leading to economic insecurity, stress, and poor health outcomes. The piece also touches on the intersection of LGBTQ+ identity with other marginalized statuses, such as race and immigrant background.

COVID-19

In § 8, Hamilton examines the latest study from the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) on the impact of long COVID in workers’ compensation claims. This article compares the findings of the updated study, which covers COVID-19 infections from March 2020 to September 2021, with the initial study’s results. Hamilton highlights key insights, including the prevalence of long COVID among workers, associated costs, duration of disability, affected body systems, and variations across industries and states. The piece underscores the significant financial implications of long COVID claims and the factors that increase the likelihood of developing long COVID, such as age and hospitalization during the acute phase.

§ 9 has Hamilton examining a study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on workers in nursing care facilities. Hamilton highlights the study’s key findings, including the 64% increase in work-related injury claims in these facilities at the pandemic’s onset, significantly outpacing other healthcare and non-healthcare settings. The piece also underscores the concerning rise in stress and mental disorder claims among nursing care workers, emphasizing the urgent need to address psychological stress and mental health in healthcare settings during pandemics.

Hamilton, in § 10, examines the case of Chavez v. Alco Harvesting, LLC, which explores the application of the fraudulent concealment exception to workers' compensation exclusivity in COVID-19 cases. Hamilton delves into the California Court of Appeal’s analysis, highlighting how the three-pronged test for fraudulent concealment can be applied in the context of a pandemic. This piece offers insights into the potential civil liability employers may face for COVID-19 related injuries and provides guidance on pleading requirements in such cases.

Excessive Heat

§ 11 features Hamilton’s examination of the growing challenge of excessive heat in the workplace. Drawing on a recent study by the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute, Hamilton explores how rising temperatures are increasing the frequency of work-related injuries across various industries and regions. The article delves into the physiological impacts of heat on workers, regional variations in heat-related injuries, and the surprising effects on indoor workers. Hamilton also discusses emerging policy responses, including OSHA’s proposed heat standard and state-level initiatives.

In § 12, Mahon explores a study from the University of Ottawa on how the 2021 Heat Dome in Western Canada affected first responders. This article delves into the unprecedented challenges faced by firefighters, police officers, paramedics, and 911 dispatchers during Canada’s deadliest extreme heat event. Using the Job Demands-Resources model, Mahon highlights how the 2021 Heat Dome strained first responders physically and emotionally, leading to potential occupational burnout. The piece offers insights into the impact of extreme weather events on emergency services, providing information for policymakers and emergency management professionals as they prepare for a future where such events may become more frequent.

Artificial Intelligence

In § 13, the Honorable Robert G. Rassp, California Workers’ Compensation Presiding Judge and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Friends Research Institute (friendsresearch.org), explores the ethical implications and practical challenges posed by AI in workers’ compensation cases. Drawing from his experience as Chairman of the Board of Directors at Friends Research Institute and his role in the California workers’ compensation system, Rassp examines how AI is reshaping medical and legal practices. The article delves into questions about the use of AI in medical record review, legal brief writing, and decision-making processes, while highlighting the need for ethical guardrails and transparency.

Joseph Dougherty, in § 14, provides an overview of a webcast hosted by the Committee for Economic Development of The Conference Board on AI’s impact on the future workforce. Dougherty highlights key discussions on AI’s current state of development, potential risks for businesses, and strategies for worker training and education. The piece explores the optimistic outlook of experts regarding AI’s potential to boost productivity and create new jobs, while also addressing concerns about worker displacement and the need for reskilling.

§ 15 features the first part of Mahon's summary of a forum on AI’s implications for law and regulations, hosted by Florida law firm, Holland & Knight, and Florida State University College of Law. Mahon highlights key discussions on AI definitions, common misconceptions, and its impact on employment practices. The piece explores critical regulatory issues, including the federal government’s response to AI, the role of the FTC, and the challenges faced by corporate compliance officers.

In § 16, Mahon continues his forum summary, focusing on Professor Anu Bradford’s analysis of the global battle to regulate technology through three distinct models: American market-driven, Chinese state-driven, and European rights-driven approaches. Mahon highlights Bradford’s insights into the conflicts between these digital powers, both horizontally across nations and vertically within countries. The piece delves into the strengths and weaknesses of each model, particularly focusing on their implications for technological innovation, economic growth, and the future of liberal democracy.

AMA Guides

§ 17 presents Stuart D. Colburn’s examination of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition. Colburn is a prominent attorney with Downs Stanford in Austin, Texas. He delves into the intricacies of impairment rating across various body systems, including spine, upper and lower extremities, traumatic brain injury, psychological injuries, and even COVID-19. He highlights key differences between the Fourth Edition and other versions, particularly in the transition from Range of Motion to Diagnosis-Related Estimates for spinal injuries. Colburn's analysis offers insights for practitioners navigating the complexities of impairment rating, addressing common misconceptions and providing practical examples.

Finally, in § 18, prolific friend and colleague, Presiding Judge Robert G. Rassp, California Division of Workers’ Compensation and author of The Lawyer’s Guide to the AMA Guides and California Workers’ Compensation (LexisNexis), provides an in-depth examination of a complex workers’ compensation case involving cauda equina syndrome. Through a detailed vignette, Rassp walks readers through the intricacies of applying the AMA Guides Fifth Edition to evaluate permanent impairment in a lumbar spine injury case. The article explores key issues such as the use of Diagnosis-Related Estimates (DRE) versus Range of Motion (ROM) methods, the combination of ratings from different medical specialties, and the challenges of rating urological and sexual dysfunction impairments. Rassp also discusses potential strategies for achieving higher disability ratings, including the consideration of catastrophic injury provisions and vocational expert testimony.

Opioids

In § 4, Christopher Mahon offers an insightful examination of how technological innovation and pharmaceutical marketing contributed to the American opioid epidemic. Drawing from a study published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Mahon traces the epidemic’s origins from 1996 to the present day, highlighting the interplay between supply-driven factors and demand. The article delves into the role of pharmaceutical companies, particularly Purdue Pharma, in increasing opioid availability and how marketing strategies influenced prescribing practices. Mahon also explores the transition from legal to illegal opioid markets and the ongoing challenges posed by technological advancements in drug production and distribution. This piece provides insights into the complex factors driving one of America’s most pressing public health crises and its implications for workers’ compensation.

Case Law Development

We close out Part I of this volume with §§ 20 and 21, containing my analysis of important “Spotlight Cases” included in both the Fall 2023 and Spring 2024 releases of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

PART II. STATE-BY-STATE LEGISLATIVE & CASE SURVEY

As we have done in recent years, Part II offers a state-by-state roundup on important workers’ compensation legislation and other developments during the past year. Part II also contains spotlight case decisions from many jurisdictions. Important state specific updates include:

• Alabama: As of July 1, 2024, the maximum workers’ compensation payable was increased to $1,130.00 per week and the minimum was increased to $311.00 per week. The memorandum regarding the new minimum and maximum rates issued by the Director of the Alabama Department of Labor Workers’ Compensation Division. Effective January 1, 2024, the mileage reimbursement rate for Alabama was raised by half a cent to 67 cents per mile. Effective July 1, 2022, a marketplace platform is no longer considered an “employer”, and a contractor that works for a marketplace platform is no longer considered an “employee” for purposes of workers’ compensation. Under Alabama law, a marketplace platform is an entity that offers a digital network or mobile application that connects potential customers to service providers and accepts service requests exclusively through the digital network. Examples of marketplace networks Uber, DoorDash, and Buzd. In order to be excluded from coverage, the marketplace platform and contractor must agree in writing that the contractor is an independent contractor, the platform cannot unilaterally prescribe specific hours during which the contractor must be available to accept service requests, the platform cannot contractually prohibit the contractor from accepting service requests for other platforms or engaging in another occupation or business, the platform cannot mandate furnished equipment or tools essential for the performance of the work (except as required by law or for safety reasons), and the contractor must bear substantially all of the expenses they incur in performing services.
• Alaska: SB 206, effective 1/1/25, modified mandatory reemployment referral times, and adjusted upward the tuition amounts allowed. The bill adopted a “stay at work” program to be developed by the rehab specialist and provided to the employee, program coordinator, and attending physician. Regulations will be adopted to handle specific issues. A last-minute addendum was tacked on that resulted in a major change is the presumption of compensability for PTSD for several professions mostly related to first responders [AS 23.30.118]. The notice timeline, presumption standard, and rebuttal standard are all altered by this bill.
• Arizona: Senate Bill 1164 directed the Industrial Commission of Arizona to establish a Fraud Unit “for the purpose of investigating fraudulent activities made in connection with workers’ compensation claims.” The ICA is still in the process of establishing the Fraud Unit and setting up governing rules.
• California: Assembly Bill 1870 was signed 7/15/24, mandating employers to include specific additional information in notices to injured workers regarding the right to consult an attorney and how fees are calculated/paid. The bill will go into effect 1/1/25. Senate Bill 700 went into effect 1/1/24 and prohibits discrimination against employees or job candidates for off duty cannabis use with some exceptions. This does not negate Labor Code Section 3600(a)(4), which provides a potential basis for denial of an industrial claim if the injury was caused by alcohol or unlawful drug use. Nor does it negate Labor Code Section 5705 (b) where a claim may be denied if the moving party [defendant] can show the intoxication was the proximate cause of the injury. There is much debate regarding what qualifies as intoxicated and whether marijuana might fall under those parameters. Pending legislation introduced in June 2024, SB 1299 which would create a rebuttable presumption of compensability for farm worker heat related injury if an employer is found to be out of compliance with CAL/OSHA heat prevention. As of July 2024, the bill had passed the Assembly Insurance Committee. Pending legislation SB 1205 would allow for TTD [missed time] for medical treatment during regular work hours. The bill as amended in June 2024 requires employee to make a reasonable effort to schedule outside of work, but a denial of time off to attend work related treatment may run afoul of Labor Code Section 132a discrimination and enhanced penalty. Less contentious bills still pending includes SB 1058 allowing park rangers to qualify for Labor Code Section 4850 benefits [full salary 52 weeks for industrial lost time].
• Colorado: Colorado’s HB24-1220 bill, which was signed into law on June 4, 2024, requires workers’ compensation insurers to pay benefits to claimants by direct deposit if requested. The insurance company or self-insured entity must honor the request. The bill went into effect on August 7, 2024, and will have additional effects on January 1, 2025. The bill’s direct deposit requirement is intended to make it easier for injured workers to receive their benefits, and to reduce the risk of lost, misplaced, or delayed checks. Other provisions of the bill include (a) adding the loss of an ear to the list of body parts that qualify for whole person permanent impairment benefits; (b) replacing the current limits on the amount of workers’ compensation benefits a claimant can receive with a single limit of $300,000, which will be adjusted annually; (c) increasing the benefit cap levels to a lower cap of $185,000 and an upper cap of $300,00, effective 01/01/2025. Hereafter, the amount will adjust annually on July 1. Modified Duty: Prior to this bill, a modified duty offer could not require a claimant to drive more than 50 miles one way in excess of pre-injury driving distance.
• Delaware: The Department of Labor, Secretary of Labor, Karryl Hubbard, has announced that the average weekly wage (AWW) in Delaware for the calendar year 2024 is $1,328.01. This wage figure was derived from data from employers participating in the State’s unemployment insurance system. Based on this weekly wage figure, the maximum weekly worker’s compensation rate will be $885.34. The minimum workers’ compensation rate will be $295.12.
• District of Columbia: After nearly two years of emergency acts and temporary legislation, the Parity in Workers’ Compensation Recovery Emergency Amendment was fully enacted in January of this year, amending the District of Columbia Workers’ Compensation Act of 1979. The amendment now allows the payment or award of compensation in the District of Columbia even if the claimant has received benefits from a workers’ compensation claim in another jurisdiction. The total benefit received, however, will be reduced by any amount received previously in the other jurisdiction. This amendment applies to all claims pending as of June 28, 2022, and all claims filed after this date. There will likely be an influx of workers’ compensation claims in the District of Columbia as claimants will no longer be barred from recovery in the District of Columbia if they have received any form of benefits in other jurisdictions. Moving forward, Employers and Insurers will need to conduct full reviews of any workers’ compensation claims that were originally filed in another jurisdiction for payout of any benefits in the original jurisdiction. Failure to fully review a workers’ compensation claim may result in the payment of benefits that had already been issued in another jurisdiction. Employers and Insurers will also need to monitor new workers’ compensation claims that are transferred into the District of Columbia to ensure that they are complying with this amendment and not denying a claimant benefits when the claimant is lawfully owed those said benefits.
• Florida: The Florida Legislature did make some changes to Chapter 440 that were signed by the Governor and will affect practitioners and stakeholders in workers’ compensation. Expert witness fees and medical/surgical reimbursement were two areas that were amended. Effective on January 1, 2025, the $200 per hour expert witness fee that practitioners have long labored under will be changed to $300 per hour. In addition, the $200 per day limitation for experts not providing direct medical services to a party has increased to $300 per day. Moreover, the medical/surgical reimbursement manual will now show an increase for maximum reimbursement for medical treatment by a physician from 110% of the reimbursement allowed by Medicare to 175%. Surgical procedures will increase from 140% of the reimbursement allowed by Medicare to 210%. The editors believe this will help to alleviate the loss of medical providers who were hesitant to treat workers’ compensation patients due to the limits on payment for medical services rendered.
• Kansas: Kansas has been among only a handful of states that has capped benefits for permanent and total disabilities from work injuries, and its lifetime permanent total cap of $155,000.00 was the lowest, according to a 2022 report from the nonprofit National Academy of Social Insurance. Kansas’s total possible death benefits and its weekly maximum benefit rate have been lower than those in all but a few states. That has significantly changed with the new 2024 Senate Bill 430. Death benefit cap increases to $500,000, from $300,000; PTD Cap increases to $400,000, from $155,000; and PPD Cap increases to $225,000, from $130,000.
• Kentucky: House Bill 401 (effective July 15, 2024) expands the definition of “physician” in workers’ compensation cases to include physicians licensed in any U.S. jurisdiction (previously only Kentucky-licensed) and retired physicians previously authorized to practice in Kentucky (if in good standing when license was surrendered). The bill also allows employers to use out-of-state physicians for medical opinions. Further, the bill revises computation of average weekly wage to include unemployment benefits received in the 52 weeks prior to injury.
• Maryland: In October 2024, HB0584/SB0476, known as the Caring for Public Employees in the Safety Professions (CAPES) Act, will go into effect providing that certain firefighters, firefighting instructors, rescue squad members, advanced life support unit members and members of the Office of the State Fire Marshal who have thyroid, colon or ovarian cancer will be presumed, under certain circumstances, to have a compensable occupational disease that was suffered in the line of duty. This new law will expand upon the current presumptions outlined in L&E §9-503 providing the presumption of a compensable occupational disease to certain public employees with heart disease, hypertension, lung disease, Lyme disease, leukemia or pancreatic, prostate, rectal or throat cancer. On April 25, 2024, Governor Wes Moore signed HB 669/SB 843 into law, which alters the approach in which future occupational deafness and hearing loss shall be calculated for purposes of workers’ compensation benefits. On July 1, 2024, a new law went into effect that increases the cap on penalties for an employer’s failure to secure the required workers’ compensation insurance or comply with an order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission regarding the employer’s failure to obtain the required insurance. The cap has been increased from $10,000 to $25,000.
• Massachusetts: Department of Industrial Accidents Updates—As of 1/1/2022, all Hearings are in-person; other proceedings remain virtual via Webex. Employee counsel are responsible for providing virtual link to employees for conferences. Benefit Update—As of 10/1/2023, minimum weekly compensation rate: $359.34; maximum weekly compensation rate: $1,796.72 (State Average Weekly Wage).
• Michigan: The benefit rates for maximum, minimum, and state average weekly wage rates continued to increase in Michigan in 2024. The maximum rate eclipsed $1,000.00/week in 2022 and has continued to increase through the present time. The maximum weekly workers’ compensation rate for 2024 is $1,134.00/week. Although there is no true minimum rate in Michigan for disability benefits, the minimum rate (also referred to as 25% State Average Weekly Wage) utilized in specific loss cases increased to $314.98.
• Missouri: The Department of Labor and Industrial Relations is implementing the Work Comp Connect Modernization Program. Its goal is to create a modernized workers’ compensation system. It will feature online filing, standardized processes, 24/7 access, and improved workflow management. Status as of late 2023: Self-service portal and customer service functions delivered. Q1 2024: Design plans for case management user screens completed. Ongoing: Designs for Medical Fee Disputes, Order entry, LIRC, and benefits administration. Estimated go-live date: August 2025.
• New Hampshire: The firefighter cancer presumption was expanded to include all types of cancer (previously limited to specific types) and also to apply to regular, call, volunteer, or retired firefighters. Regarding medical marijuana, the statute was revised so as to expand qualifying conditions to include any “debilitating” condition (effective October 1, 2024). Generalized anxiety disorder was added as a qualifying condition (effective September 10, 2024).
• New Jersey:J.S.A. 34:15.7.3 overhaul (signed January 16, 2024) extends coverage to private sector EMTs and paramedics for heart attacks or strokes. It creates a high rebuttable presumption in favor of compensability. An employer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the incident was not work-related. It covers incidents during emergency response and up to 24 hours thereafter.
• New York: Bill S.6929 (passed, not yet delivered to Governor) allows medical treatment costing less than $1,500 without prior approval. It also modifies the “pre-authorized procedures” list and allows non-network providers to be compensated at provider network rates. Bill S1974A (passed, not yet delivered to Governor) allows claimants to use any in-state pharmacy registered with the State education department. As to Administrative Efficiency Improvements, there has been a continued rollout of “OnBoard” web-based claims system, the Backlog of medical prior authorization requests has been reduced to zero. There has also been reduced resolution time for disputed medical bills, and mandatory electronic submission of RFA-1LC form for attorneys. Maximum weekly indemnity rate is now $1,171.46 (effective July 1, 2024). The minimum weekly indemnity benefit is now $275.00 (for injuries/accidents on or after January 1, 2024).
• Ohio: Administrative Updates—Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Board actions (April 2024): “Lapse free” rebate program sunsets (effective 7/1/2024); Transitional Work Performance Bonus sunsets (effective 7/1/2024); New premium calculation combining state base rate with BWC administrative costs; Proposed 7% reduction in workers’ compensation premium rates for private employers (July 2024 to June 2025). Legislative Updates—Recreational marijuana legalized (Issue 2, November 2023 election); Businesses retain right to maintain drug-free workplace policies.
• Oregon: HB 4138 extends retroactive temporary disability authorization from 14 to 45 days; prohibits termination of temporary disability benefits without proper notice; limits medically stationary date identification to 60 days in the past; and limits overpayment recovery from permanent partial disability awards. SB 418 (effective January 1, 2024), eliminates four-hour minimum for medical appointment time loss benefits and allows benefits for any time loss due to “compensable medical services.” HB 3471 prohibits “no-rehire” provisions in workers’ compensation settlements and establishes penalties for violations. As to Administrative Rule Changes, eligibility for vocational retraining was expanded to include workers not authorized to work in the U.S. (effective July 1, 2024).
• Rhode Island: Effective January 1, 2025, the Workers’ Compensation Omnibus Bill increased benefits for dependents of totally incapacitated individuals to $25 per week; changed differential payment for suitable alternative employment from 66-2/3% to 62%; and adds mediation provision for disputes over reimbursements from third-party claims.
• Tennessee: Public Chapter 532 (effective July 1, 2024) establishes 14-day uniform period for electronic filing of First Report of Injury; removes Notice of Controversy form requirement; clarifies uninsured employer penalties apply to construction and non-construction entities; and extends Bureau of Workers’ Compensation's authority to enforce insurance coverage laws until July 1, 2029. Public Chapter 666 (effective April 9, 2024) enacts Tennessee Self-Insurers’ Guaranty Association Act. Public Chapter 0813 (effective April 29, 2024) requires Comptroller study of workers’ compensation insurers and self-insurance pools for local government entities. Public Chapter 687 bases Tennessee National Guard members’ benefits on the greater of civilian or active-duty wages. Public Chapters 492, 498, and 499 extend various workers’ compensation-related committees and bureaus to June 30, 2029.
• Texas: Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) signaled potential changes for Supplemental Income Benefits (SIBs) applications. Documentary evidence of job search efforts may be required. There is a new form, Form DWC-052, effective July 2024, includes instructions for attaching job applications or other documents. TDI adopted new rules for Designated Doctor program (effective June 1, 2024) including an annual adjustment of reimbursement rates based on Medicare Economic Index and billing for no-show appointments ($100).
• Washington: HB 1927 amends RCW 51.32.090—Workers are now entitled to temporary disability benefits for first three days if disability continues for seven consecutive calendar days (previously 14 days). In a follow-up to ESHB 1521 (2023), there is anticipation of 2025 legislation granting authority to Department of Labor & Industries to administer remaining self-insured claims for decertified employers due to good faith and fair dealing violations.
• Wisconsin: As to statute of limitations, new legislation clarifies when statute of limitations begins to run for compromise agreements. Changes prevent indefinite holding of claims by Division of Workforce Development. Other legislation now allows employers and insurers to pay out “lump sum” PPD awards in full prior to accrual.

Interesting spotlight cases include:

• Alabama: Exclusive Remedy for “Employee” Who Was Unaware of “Special Employee Status” [see Ex parte Midsouth Paving, Inc., Supreme Court, May 19, 2023)].
• Alabama: Removal of Safety Equipment [see Ex parte Varoff, Supreme Court, Dec. 22, 2022)].
• California: Whole Person Impairment; AMA Guides Combined Value Chart [see Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal. Comp. Cases 686].
• Florida: Permanent Total Claims [see Gulf Management v. Wall, 375 So 3d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)].
• Georgia: Posting Panel of Physicians Notice [see Lilienthal v. JLK, Inc., 367 Ga. App. 721, 888 S.E.2d 310 (2023)].
• Hawaii: Timely Appeals [see Dean v. State of Hawai’i, 154 Haw. 298, 550 P.3d 1156, 2024 Haw. LEXIS 75].
• Hawaii: Subrogation Interests [see Hyun Ju Park v. City & County of Honolulu, 154 Haw. 1, 543 P.3d 433 (2024)].
• Idaho: Full Invoice Reimbursement for Denied Claims [see Thompson v. Burley Inn, Inc., 546 P.3d 649, 2024 Ida. LEXIS 35 (April 2, 2024).
• Idaho: Employer’s Right to Schedule IMEs [see Coray v. Idaho Reg’l Hand & Upper Extremity Ctr., PLLC, 551 P.3d 712, 2024 Ida. LEXIS 61 (June 27, 2024)].
• Idaho: Independent Contractor Status in Workers’ Compensation Cases [see Smith v. Excel Fabrication, LLC, 535 P.3d 1098 (Idaho 2023)].
• Iowa: Impairment Rating Examinations: [see Mid American Construction, LLC v. Sandlin, 2 N.W.3d 838 (Iowa 2024)].
• Illinois: Permanent Total Disability Benefits [see American Coal Co. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission et al., 2024 IL App (5th) 230815WC].
• Illinois: Traveling Employee Doctrine [see Town of Cicero v. Ill. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 2024 IL App (1st) 230609WC].
• Kentucky: Clarifies Requirements for Employers to Receive Credit for Wages Paid During TTD periods [see General Motors, LLC v. Giovanni Smith (2024-CA-0367-WC, July 12, 2024)].
• Kentucky: Broad Interpretation of the Traveling Employee Doctrine [see Lee v. W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co. (2023-CA-0695-WC, October 27, 2023)].
• Kentucky: COVID-19 Claims; Distinguishing Injury (Communicable Disease) from Occupational Disease Claims [see Murphy v. Norton Healthcare (Cl. No. 202201161, March 15, 2024)].
• Maryland: Occupational Disease; Distinctive to Type of Work Performed [see In the Matter of Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc., et al., 262 Md. App. 1 (2024)].
• Minnesota: Addressing Causation, Reasonable and Necessary Treatment, MMI, and Vocational Rehabilitation Benefits [see Machado Rivera v. Installed Building Products (Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals, May 6, 2024)].
• Minnesota: Employees Allowed to Assert Claims for Medical Expenses Owed to Non-Intervening Providers [see Johnson v. Concrete Treatments, et al. (Minn. Supreme Court, May 29, 2024)].
• Mississippi: Self-Insured Employers May Delegate Responsibilities to Investigate and Pay Claims to Third-Party Administrators [see Hardaway v. Howard Industries, Inc. (No. 2022-CA-00787-SCT, January 1, 2024)].
• Mississippi: Employer’s Medical Examination (EME) Expenses Not Considered “medical expenses” That are Reimbursable in Third-Party Subrogation Claims [see Brent v. Mississippi Department of Human Services (No. 2022-CT-0529-SCT, May 30, 2024)].
• Montana: Pretrial Discovery [see Accident Fund Gen. Ins. Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2024 Mont. LEXIS 609, 417 Mont. 555, 550 P.3d 789].
• Nebraska: COVID-19 as an “Ordinary Disease of Life” [see Thiele v. Select Medical Corp. (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2024)].
• New Hampshire: DOL Ordered to Conduct First-Level Hearings on Denied Second Injury Fund claims [see Petition of Manchester (Case Number 2022-0696, July 16, 2024)]
• New Hampshire: Exclusivity Bar under Workers’ Compensation Statute Applies to “Non-Compensable Settlements” [see Katherine Sylvester v. Woodward’s White Mountain Resort, LLC (Case No: 2023-0109, December 20, 2023)].
• New Jersey: Eligibility for TDB for Employees Who Work and Attend School [see Soto v. Hoosier Care, Inc. (No. A-0507-22, App. Div. December 11, 2023)].
• New York: Lack of Evidence as to Motivation for Assault Does not Rebut WCL § 21(1) Presumption [see Timperio v. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital (2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 02723)].
• New York: Extends Blue Decision Beyond Knee Injuries, Potentially Leading to Larger Schedule Loss of Use Awards [see Garrow v. Lowe’s Home Centers Inc. (227 A.D.3d 1242, 3d Dep't 2024).
• New York: Proper Service of Appeals in Workers’ Compensation Cases [see Evans v. Northeast Logistics (227 A.D.3d 1246, 3d Dep't 2024)].
• New York: Mental Stress Claims from COVID-19 Exposure [see Anderson v. City of Yonkers (227 A.D.3d 63, 3d Dep't 2024)].
• North Dakota: Rehabilitation Plans [see State v. Kringlie, 2024 ND 26, 2 N.W.3d 709, 2024 N.D. LEXIS 22].
• Ohio: Recoupment of TTD Benefits Received After Achieving MMI (overrules prior case law) [see State ex rel. Dillon v. Indus. Comm. (2024-Ohio-744, March 5, 2024)].
• Ohio: Temporary Total Compensation Eligibility (clarifies voluntary abandonment doctrine in workers’ compensation cases) [see State ex rel. Quest Diagnostics, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (2023-Ohio-2213, July 5, 2023)].
• Oklahoma: Co-Worker Liability in Third-Party District Court Actions [see Bayouth v. Dewberry (2024 OK 42)].
• Oklahoma: Limitations on Indemnity Provisions in Contracts with Subcontractors [see Knox v. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. (2024 OK 37)].
• Oregon: Worker-Requested Medical Exams [Teitelman v. SAIF (332 Or App 72, 2024)].
• Oregon: Insurers Must Modify Notice of Acceptance when Receiving Unrebutted Medical Information Incompatible with Existing Notice [see Nava v. SAIF (333 Or App 196, 2024)].
• Pennsylvania: Counsel Fees Available on Medical Expenses [see Williams v. City of Philadelphia (WCAB), 277 C.D. 2023, _ A.3d _ (Pa. Cmwlth. March 21, 2024)].
• South Dakota: Handling Claims After Initial Benefit Payments [see Horn v. Firstcomp Ins. Co. (No. CIV. 17-5016-JLV, 2021 WL 1909707, D.S.D. May 12, 2021)].
• Utah: PTD Claim Denied for Failure to Satisfy Statutory Elements [see Rouse v. Labor Commission (2024 UT App 77, May 23, 2024)].
• Utah: Time-Barring of PTD claim [see Mayhew v. Labor Commission (2024 UT App 84, May 31, 2024)].
• Utah: Temporary Aggravation of Preexisting Condition Insufficient for PTD Award [see Stage Dept. Store v. Labor Commission (2024 UT APP 85, June 6, 2024)].
• Vermont: Jurisdictional Requirements for Workers’ Compensation Claims [see Burnett v. Home Improvement Company of Vermont, 2024 VT 41, 2024 Vt. LEXIS 42 (July 19, 2024)].
• Vermont: Strict “Deliberate Intent” Standard for Overcoming Exclusivity Defense [see Lewis v. VR US Holdings, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85912 (D. Vt. May 13, 2024)].
• Washington: Publication of IME Recordings to Social Media [see Ten Injured Workers v. State of Washington (Wash. App., August 12, 2024].
• West Virginia: Apportionment Calculations of Preexisting Awards and Conditions [see Logan-Mingo Area Mental Health, Inc. v. Lester, 902 S.E.2d 768, 2024 WL 2890070 (W. Va. 06/10/2024) and Duff v. Kanawha County Comm’n, No. 23-43, 2024 WL 1715166 (W. Va. 04/22/2024)].
• Wisconsin: Compromise Agreement Invalid if not Signed by all Parties Before Claimant’s death [see Freund (Deceased) v. GGNSC Superior Nat'l Fire Union Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh (LIRC December 29, 2023)].
• Wisconsin: Horseplay Injuries [see Kelley v. Village of Mount Pleasant (LIRC, April 12, 2024)].
• Wyoming: PTD, Odd Lot Doctrine, and Need for Physician Certification [see Gray v. State ex rel. Department of Workforce Servs., 540 P.3d 211 (Wyo. 2023)].

 © Copyright 2024 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.