RECAP ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO IOWA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAWS DURING THE 89TH AND 90TH GENERAL ASSEMBLIES
Each year, Baylor Evnen Wolfe & Tannehill, LLP actively monitors and reports regarding workers’ compensation legislation that impacts our clients. With the 89th General Assembly now closed, we want to provide our clients with a recap of the workers’ compensation legislation that was proposed and the bills’ current status. In addition, several workers’ compensation bills were recently introduced at the beginning of the 90th—and current—General Assembly; those bills and their current status are also discussed below.
In summary, based upon our review, we do not see any appreciable legislation impacting workers’ compensation being enacted this session. However, please review the bill summaries below as some of these bills will carry over to the next legislative session and may impact the workers’ compensation arena next year.
Bills Introduced During the 90th General Assembly
SF 365: Selection of Medical Care
SF 365 would allow the employer to choose care for an injured employee unless the employee has predesignated a physician as provided in the bill. The employee would have the right to predesignate a primary care physician who has previously treated the employee. The employer would then be required to provide written notice to employees of their right to predesignate a physician upon hire and periodically during employment. As Iowa is an employer-directed care state, this bill would erode the employer’s ability to direct an injured employee’s care. Notably, SF 365 appears materially identical to HF 123, a bill previously considered during the 89th General Assembly and discussed below.
SF 365 was introduced on February 22, 2023, and referred to the Workforce Committee. As it did not advance from committee by the first legislative funnel deadline of March 3, 2023, it will likely not be considered further during this General Assembly. But per House and Senate Rules, it will carry over to be considered by the 91st General Assembly.
The full text of this bill can be found here.
SF 367: Second Injury Fund Shoulder Injuries
Current law provides that employees who previously lost (or lost use of) one hand, one arm, one foot, one leg, or one eye can be compensated for subsequent injuries from the Second Injury Fund. SF 367 would include the loss (or lost use) of a shoulder as a compensable injury for Second Injury Fund benefits. SF 367 is again similar to another bill considered during the last General Assembly SF 2300, discussed below.
SF 367 was introduced on February 22, 2023, and referred to the Workforce Committee. As it did not advance from committee by the first legislative funnel deadline of March 3, 2023, it will likely not be considered further during this General Assembly. But per House and Senate Rules, it will carry over to be considered by the 91st General Assembly.
The full text of this bill can be found here.
SF 371: Second Injury Fund Benefits
SF 371 provides that a prior military-service injury sustained to a scheduled member could serve as a qualifying first injury in order to make a claim against the Second Injury Fund. It would require, after the expiration of the full period provided by current law for payment from the employer, the Second Injury Fund to provide compensation to the employee to the degree of permanent disability involved after first deducting the compensable value of the prior military-service injury. SF 371 is again materially identical to another bill considered during the last General Assembly, SF 2023.
SF 371 was introduced on February 22, 2023, and referred to the Workforce Committee. As it did not advance from committee by the first legislative funnel deadline of March 3, 2023, it will likely not be considered further during this General Assembly. But per House and Senate Rules, it will carry over to be considered by the 91st General Assembly.
The full text of this bill can be found here.
Bills Considered During the 89th General Assembly
HF 2411: Replacement of Prosthetics
HF 2411 provides that the cost of replacing prosthetic devices is compensable, including subsequent replacements, if (1) the prosthetic device is needed as a result of a compensable injury and (2) the prosthetic device would otherwise be considered reasonable medical care. HF 2411 unanimously passed both the House and Senate and was signed into law by Governor Reynolds on June 14, 2022. HF 2411 was the only workers’ compensation bill to become law during the second session of the 89th General Assembly. It is now codified in several subsections within Iowa Code § 85.
The full text of this bill can be found here.
SF 2300: Second Injury Fund Shoulder Injuries
Current law provides that employees who previously lost (or lost use of) one hand, one arm, one foot, one leg, or one eye can be compensated for subsequent injuries from the Second Injury Fund. SF 2300 would have added the loss (or lost use) of a shoulder as a compensable injury for Second Injury Fund benefits. This bill did not make it out of committee and will not be considered by the 90th General Assembly.
The full text of this bill can be found here.
SF 2023: Second Injury Fund Benefits
Essentially, SF 2023 would have allowed a prior military-service injury sustained to a scheduled member to serve as a qualifying first injury in order to make a claim against the Second Injury Fund. This bill did not make it out of committee and will not be considered by the 90th General Assembly.
The full text of this bill can be found here.
HF 791: Prohibition of Offset
HF 791 would, in part, have provided that any workers’ compensation benefits received by a public employee for (1) past or future medical expenses, (2) reimbursement of vacation or sick time used, or (3) any unpaid time off work would not be offset against and not considered payable in lieu of any retirement allowance payable under the Iowa public employees’ retirement system on account of the same disability. This bill did not make it out of committee and will not be considered by the 90th General Assembly.
The full text of this bill can be found here.
HF 715: Potential Effect on AWW
HF 715 was a wide-ranging “workers’ bill of rights,” but would not have directly changed existing workers’ compensation laws. This bill would have gradually increased the statewide minimum wage to $15 by 2025. It would have also required “premium pay” for essential employees during a period of “infectious disease emergency.” Essential employees would have included health care professionals, emergency medical care providers, fire fighters, peace officers, employees of public and nonpublic schools, employees of food, agriculture, or manufacturing facilities, employees of state/local correctional facilities, and employees of retail establishments. The Labor Commissioner would have been required to establish a rate or amount of premium pay. This bill could therefore have had impacts on employees’ AWW, but it did not make it out of committee and will not be considered by the 90th General Assembly.
The full text of this bill can be found here.
SF 414: Prohibition on Survivor Benefits
SF 414 would have prohibited payment of workers’ compensation benefits to a surviving dependent of a deceased person if the dependent was either designated as a terrorist by a federal agency, or was subject to an arrest warrant issued by a federal agency. It is unclear why this bill was introduced, given its narrow scope. It was referred to the State Government Committee, but did not advance from there, and will not be considered by the 90th General Assembly.
The full text of this bill can be found here.
HF 410: Statute of Limitations
Current law provides that an original proceeding regarding a contest of liability for workers’ compensation benefits can be maintained if commenced within two years from the date of the occurrence of the injury. HF 410 would have provided that such a proceeding could be maintained within that period or within one year from the date a denial of liability was received by the employee, whichever is later. This bill would have essentially extended the statute of limitations for employees to bring claims for benefits. It was also referred to the State Government Committee, but did not advance from there, and will not be considered by the 90th General Assembly.
The full text of this bill can be found here.
SF 138: Carryover COVID Legislation
SF 138 would have created a rebuttable presumption that an employee’s COVID-19 infection was a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The bill would also have required employers to pay two weeks of indemnity benefits to employees who became infected with COVID-19. SF 138 purported to apply to all employees, not just those in certain professions. It was referred to a subcommittee of the Labor and Business Relations Committee, but failed to advance and will not be considered by the 90th General Assembly.
The full text of this bill can be found here.
HF 162: COLA and AWW
HF 162 would have required certain weekly workers’ compensation benefits to be calculated by including an employee’s overtime, premium pay, and including an annual cost-of-living adjustment. The bill would have also required that the basis of compensation for permanent total disability benefits to increase each year on January 1, by a percentage equal to the cost-of-living adjustment made to disability benefits payable by the United States Social Security Administration the previous year. It failed in the Labor Committee and will not be considered by the 90th General Assembly.
The full text of this bill can be found here.
HF 123: Selection of Medical Care
HF 123 would have allowed the employer to choose care for an injured employee unless the employee had predesignated a physician as provided in the bill. The employee would have had the right to predesignate a primary care physician who had previously treated the employee. The employer would have then been required to provide written notice to employees of their right to predesignate a physician upon hire. As Iowa is an employer-directed care state, this bill would have eroded the employer’s ability to direct an injured employee’s care. It too failed in the Labor Committee and will not be considered by the 90th General Assembly.
The full text of this bill can be found here.
Baylor Evnen Wolfe & Tannehill, LLP has a long history of involvement in the Iowa legislative process. We will continue to monitor proposed changes to workers’ compensation law during the course of the 90th General Assembly and will provide updates as needed to keep you informed. If you have questions about a bill, please contact Paul Barta or Micah Hawker Boehnke at 402-475-1075.