Government Issues and Politics
Insurance and Employee Benefits
Business and Economic Info
Human Resources and Safety
Education Policy and Practice
Training and Consulting Services
Welcome to Government Issues & Politics
Legal Compliance About the Issues How to Get Involved Governor Congress Links and Resources

LEGISLATIVE ALERT:
Key workers' comp reform under attack

 

(April 13, 2006)

Despite the fact that reforms to Connecticut’s workers’ compensation system have been beneficial to the state, some lawmakers persist in trying to repeal key components.

Efforts are now under way to eliminate the Social Security offset for people eligible to receive both workers’ compensation and a Social Security benefit.

  • The cost of this proposal (SB-25) to Connecticut employers is expected to be $8 million in the first year alone, according to a recent impact statement issued by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI). That increased cost would continue in future years.
  • What’s more, the Appropriations Committee included a similar measure for state employees in the revised state budget the committee recently approved — at a cost of nearly $500,000 to the state in fiscal year 2007.

Legislators established the Social Security offset when they overhauled Connecticut’s unworkable workers’ compensation system in order to remove a disincentive for injured employees to return to work.

Please take action now

Please contact your state legislators, legislative leaders and Gov. Rell to urge them to reject SB-25 and the budget proposal to repeal the Social Security offset.

 

Contact your legislators

Contact Gov. M. Jodi Rell (800-406-1527)

Contact Speaker of the House James Amann (800-842-8267)

Contact Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams (800-842-1920)

Contact House Minority Leader Rep. Robert Ward, (800-842-1421)

Contact Senate Republican Leader Sen. Louis DeLuca (800-842-1421)

 

Get more info about SB-25

For example:

  • Under current law, an employee who is injured during the course of employment receives workers’ compensation benefits.
  • When the employee becomes eligible for Social Security, the workers’ comp benefits are reduced by the amount of the Social Security benefits.

Without the offset:

  • The employee could use workers’ comp as an additional retirement benefit and have no incentive to return to work.
  • Workers’ comp is designed to be a wage-replacement—not retirement income—system.

Despite what proponents of the bill are saying, this bill would apply to people who are injured before they reach retirement age.

 

The business community has been willing to look at the system as it applies to people who are receiving Social Security and go back to work to make ends meet and are injured.

  • But SB-25 goes too far by including all workers who receive workers’ comp and then become eligible for Social Security.

In addition to costing employers, according to the legislative Office of Fiscal Analysis, there would also be “significant additional costs” to the state’s workers’ comp system.

 

For all of these reasons SB-25 should be rejected.

 

This is especially true this year, one in which legislators from both parties have said that improving the state’s economy and creating more jobs is the top priority. Repealing a key workers’ comp reform would deal a major blow to that commitment.


 

Also this week: Other workers' comp bills rejected
Fortunately, committees this week rejected three other bills that would have harmed Connecticut’s workers’ comp system and increased costs.

  • SB-217 died in the Appropriations Committee. The bill attempted to repeal a key system reform by removing the obligation, under current law, to choose the lesser of two options — discretionary benefits for the statutory duration of the claimants’ permanent partial disability benefits, or 520 weeks of discretionary benefits. The bill would have caused “significant additional costs,” says the Office of Fiscal Analysis.
  • SB-221 — required that light duty offered to an employee must be offered during the same hours and days as pre-injury unless otherwise agreed to by both the employee and the employer. It also imposed a fine of up to $500 for violation. The bill died in the Planning and Development Committee.
  • SB-461 — died in the Judiciary Committee. It would have increased employers' burden for workers' comp.
  • For more information, contact CBIA’s Bonnie Stewart at 860-244-1900 or stewartb@cbia.com.