[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6610695,"mediaKeyId","2902027-2d925ea4cd53e48c31a82a2d207df1f2","parentId",2902027,"title","Bill would require employers to tell injured workers how much they may owe while on workers' comp","audioSeconds",151,"startMs",4932000,"endMs",5083000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2902027-2d925ea4cd53e48c31a82a2d207df1f2&start=4932&end=5083","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2902027-2d925ea4cd53e48c31a82a2d207df1f2/thumbnail_4932000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6610695/New-Hampshire/Bill-would-require-employers-to-tell-injured-workers-how-much-they-may-owe-while-on-workers-comp","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6610695-c26be91e5f8dea0b76b647dd67e471b4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770983135&Signature=VjfJHYvmNtZcIhMCrN0T~hb-F8qHxZzkWICwXVShpmgfO9exfoy0VALJRtEmbC9qg1V~aqPtfqoonQkoXesvBttge~M6hZaNlnipdkvAXuh5S2evPLulTx01lkngr9Xl6d8OVUa7NFKm8uOzojQ7-UxjWdN7byXHOW5dtzaKU1rYP2ojLpzvcaXD~inWosv9H7RWiip~2pmhIoVLd~H46RPrGTnqe8gl7UbLjzdxw75lPflZDqLY9bk4DW2n25j-nYU9AdfPiIw48mcvaXTS0TWYHTnPp5G75-yr0TSD5n60ABGZ9407sCByBBzsk30-YB4j6BW~HkXWDnka6tdfhg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-04-08T19:41:49.237Z","article","Senate Bill 169 would require employers who make supplemental or supplemental-like payments for workers on indemnity to provide injured employees with written breakdowns of payments, anticipated adjustments and payment options. The requirement would apply within 30 days of injury and every 30 days while the supplemental payments continue.

Supporters, including the Professional Firefighters in New Hampshire, framed the bill as a transparency measure designed to avoid surprise repayment demands. Tyler Govaine, director of government and political affairs for the Professional Firefighters in New Hampshire, told the committee the bill \"seeks to provide greater transparency and financial certainty for employees receiving workers' compensation indemnity benefits.\" He cited an example where a firefighter returned from leave and was presented with an $18,000 repayment demand.

Testimony showed disagreement about what the bill would cover and how overpayments are recouped. Deputy Commissioner Danielle Albert of the Department of Labor said the department is neutral on the bill and noted the term \"supplemental pay\" is not defined in the workers' compensation statute; she suggested the committee consider clearer definitions and a requirement that employers file a copy of the notice with the department if the intent is to facilitate regulatory oversight.

Witnesses including employers and human-resources consultants described typical mechanics: employers sometimes continue benefit payments (insurer pays indemnity but the employer keeps insurance premium payments, retirement contributions or voluntary deductions in place), creating an overlap that can lead to a later demand for repayment when a carrier determines benefits do not cover a given period or when the employer seeks reimbursement. Testimony also noted that other statutory mechanisms (for example, RSA 2:75 dealing with payroll deductions and overpayments) present additional constraints and rights that must be considered.

Committee action: At executive session the committee voted 10-9 to report the bill Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services (04/08/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 169 would require employers who provide supplemental pay to workers on indemnity to give written, periodic breakdowns of payments and anticipated adjustments so employees can budget and avoid surprise repayment demands.","taxTitle","Public Works and Highways, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17759,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6610705,"Committee hears testimony on bill to treat PTSD as occupational disease for first responders",834,531000,1365000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2902027-2d925ea4cd53e48c31a82a2d207df1f2&start=531&end=1365","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2902027-2d925ea4cd53e48c31a82a2d207df1f2/thumbnail_531000.jpg","/articles/6610705/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-testimony-on-bill-to-treat-PTSD-as-occupational-disease-for-first-responders","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6610705-5acf199ad831a3ac10e143de8029c96c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770983135&Signature=TDFLIsCIlRCWa-CSNeFWzDuOq9Z2hm8n1zKg1LmjKzy8ZemxDMH4DOV5Aep8nxGAwOj1XTl1WENTQ9DFtpeal83PFvtjSnBaC1vP3YOaCvbvfnrtZaTbC6g89jZrVVIMuDDemDrqAA1i5~WEnxFg~asjCQf4JgWO2ASUWo~qi1L1Eoz0k8aUV9sg9BN1O~~e7Yb2fJ1qn-YAaMFrNmIyZiD2FR3pdk7b3uGRukLjiKJhA2riPSLvUmtCReGHMaiqNOGGbO487QJVb13BRZ3xxTt7Ro~RZBa48AXsnN5T7lTiamZT7wvdCVdrgGBTAbrecVv1Nzof80rg19DXR25A9g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 28 would direct the New Hampshire Department of Labor and insurers to treat post-traumatic stress disorder and acute stress disorder for emergency responders in the same way the state treats occupational diseases, using the date of first medical treatment or the date of last injurious exposure as the date of injury.

Proponents, including the bills prime sponsor, state Senator Regina Birdsall, and representatives of the Professional Firefighters in New Hampshire, told the House Labor Committee during a public hearing that the change is intended to ensure responders whose symptoms accumulate over years can file timely workerscomp claims. Senator Regina Birdsall (District 19) said the measure addresses the fact that PTSD sometimes doesn't show up for a number of years and there will be a traumatic event that triggers it.

Tyler Govaine, representing the Professional Firefighters in New Hampshire, urged committee support and described the proposal this way: It would change the date of injury from the date of first exposure to the date of last injurious exposure or the date of which the employee first knew of that condition. He and other witnesses cited research on elevated PTSD and suicide risk among firefighters and paramedics to argue earlier access to treatment could reduce long-term disability.

Jared O'Connor, an attorney who has litigated workerscomp cases for first responders and served on the governor's PTSD commission, explained the legal effect: What this legislation does is instruct the labor department and the carriers to treat PTSD like the disease that it is meaning, like any other cumulative occupational disease, the date of injury is the date of first medical treatment or last injurious exposure. O'Connor said the change avoids situations in which a worker with a decades-old traumatic exposure is time barred from filing a claim because the original event was outside the statute window.

The Department of Labor told the committee it was neutral on the bill. Deputy Commissioner Danielle Albert said the department reviewed the language and believes it can regulate the change as written. She noted the bill aligns PTSD claim timing with existing RSA provisions on occupational disease and cumulative trauma, and that disputed cases would still be adjudicated through the department's hearing process.

Witnesses from corrections and fire service organizations described workplace conditions and cultural barriers that delay treatment, and urged passage to reduce stigma and speed care. Gary Burke, a corrections captain, described short staffing and repeated traumatic exposures among corrections staff and said the bill would be crucial for his agency.

Committee action: at the meeting's executive session the committee voted to report SB 28 \"ought to pass\" (committee motion; roll call 18-0).","Senate Bill 28 would direct the New Hampshire Department of Labor and insurers to treat post-traumatic stress disorder and acute stress disorder for emergency responders in the same way the state treats occupational diseases, using the date of first medical treatment or the date of last injurious exposure as the date of injury.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6610690,"Committee approves measure to exempt remote workers from two-hour reporting minimum",246,6418000,6664000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2902027-2d925ea4cd53e48c31a82a2d207df1f2&start=6418&end=6664","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2902027-2d925ea4cd53e48c31a82a2d207df1f2/thumbnail_6418000.jpg","/articles/6610690/New-Hampshire/Committee-approves-measure-to-exempt-remote-workers-from-two-hour-reporting-minimum","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6610690-bb0a64c972d62e4169482accbef481d6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770983135&Signature=FZ98e5w5EupIf4LpewCCBRCZD0VSWm1l~0aIda5vLbndkqqIhMUlGKE93hTu3JG~IxbdFmbmRMyTkWcrHmJvJgtnibrvD7VCw2jeyF9XUN8nqOi98r0GtruTvUZ4j-wcPgjZRltTohIJRv7IQWaDTaAysFHqtSUtHCfsVhmahDYXqNA3ZzttdKsq1Ee3EQgiJ-qlMva2ytnwIAdsJ~2tWytS3CqWXB5H8-l-ofNN1Zz-vNvhAK~sQiwBO3DsR3iYCr~6-qG0BTllNG5RtoGAASAlGronX-7C1FkDkWxpaWGwkqhz-6Zok5yJnbFaUs8VJ-4ggzwoXP0cGpSpcaEm1w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 171 would add language excluding employees who are working remotely from the states two-hour minimum reporting-time requirement. Under current RSA 275:43 employers generally must pay a minimum of two hours of wages when an employee reports to work at the employer's request but is dismissed, or is assigned less than two hours of work. The bill's proposed change would not remove employers' obligation to pay for time actually worked; it would exempt remote workers whose work begins and ends at their domicile.

Supporters, including employers and HR consultants, said the law was drafted before telework was common and has produced unfair results in the post-COVID era. Allison Milano of Blue Lion, an HR consultancy, told the committee that remote workers who log in briefly to answer messages should not trigger two-hour minimums: \"If an employee wants to log on on a Sunday to get organized for Monday, checking emails and prioritizing their week for 30 minutes, the employer should not be held accountable for paying them for 2 hours.\"

Opponents and some committee members cautioned against repealing the statutory protection. They said the two-hour minimum protects employees who make commuting arrangements or incur childcare and related costs when they are asked to report. Representative McKenzie recounted the laws original intent and warned that removing the protection outright could disadvantage workers who must travel or make arrangements to report in person.

Department of Labor General Counsel John Gerigan told the committee the department is neutral on the bill and suggested clarifying the definition of remote work or domicile so enforcement will be consistent. He noted administrative rules (Labor 803) address scheduling exceptions and that the departments enforcement is complaint driven; he recommended precise statutory language to avoid blurred cases such as workers who perform duties at client sites or off-site customer locations.

Committee action: At executive session the committee voted to report Senate Bill 171 \"Ought to Pass with Amendment\"; the committee adopted an amendment that would repeal RSA 275:43 (the two-hour minimum) in its entirety, effectively removing a statewide statutory two-hour reporting guarantee and treating remote work periods as compensable time only for time actually worked. The committee vote on the amended recommendation was 11-8.","Senate Bill 171 would clarify that the two-hour minimum pay for workers called in to report to work does not apply to employees working remotely from their homes. Supporters said the change would modernize an old rule and avoid penalizing employers for brief remote activity; opponents warned the two-hour rule protects workers who incur travel or",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6610700,"Panel debates time limits for medical provider disputes in workers' compensation billing",1474,3621000,5095000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2902027-2d925ea4cd53e48c31a82a2d207df1f2&start=3621&end=5095","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2902027-2d925ea4cd53e48c31a82a2d207df1f2/thumbnail_3621000.jpg","/articles/6610700/New-Hampshire/Panel-debates-time-limits-for-medical-provider-disputes-in-workers-compensation-billing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6610700-15602b328e71a6de9109d8d267ced3e7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770983135&Signature=lM8y8l~ddCRyVJpx2f1z6aNS-YOHyq4SAbNEDcxT7h1K5tcVvkIOF7QBk4K4Fwwg29YWKzP0RHuAwCBDL~d2IJbtYBw4vnN6rL68WD4JczNOnxa3PdvBZRvkEpNyqrYhCXn9HHXJj4Mg6FCyiHUiGe9tP0kd9-B~MYBg81th2HiU47OCn~TvnkzgYDVRQ~CeLTd4CwPWu-CyEj9sM0p7OOwFd8eVIPkrxNqtJMBNPKt8UV5CsOO2qqk8YlDNdSBl9W0SqhbtSELG-qCKkpH3ButjRh2PzSQ01hUGc7UQQ7lDqeCK43JzFTnBLijAfRcG1Zo-cbnqDf-ZhCnXR~24-Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 67 would impose a deadline for medical providers to dispute payment amounts they receive from insurance carriers or self-insured groups for services rendered under workers' compensation. The bill, as introduced, set two 45-day windows (90 days total) after payment for provider notification and negotiation; testimony referenced an original 90-day draft and an amendment that would use 45 days per window.

Peter O'Neil, communications director to a senate sponsor, described the proposal as a narrow change intended to prevent medical providers from filing disputes years after a claim is closed. He told the committee: \"All senate bill 67 does is introduce a reasonable time limit, which is outlined as 90 days in this bill.\" O'Neil said the limit would be three times the 30 days carriers currently have to pay bills.

Representatives of self-insured groups and third-party administrators said open-ended disputes can surface after policy years are closed and surplus returns have occurred, leaving trustees and members exposed. Peter Bragdon, representing the Lawson Group, which administers several New Hampshire self-insured trusts, said 90 days total (two 45-day periods) was reasonable and that self-insured groups would accept additional flexibility in complex cases if both parties agreed.

Medical providers and hospital representatives warned that the bill's original windows were too short for their billing and appeals processes. Jennifer White, CEO of Concord Orthopedics, said \"claims don't actually pay in 30 days\" and urged a substantially longer period; multiple provider witnesses asked for 12 to 18 months to consolidate episode billing and avoid a surge of hearings. Providers also said that payments are often not paid correctly, that appeals are administrative and time-consuming, and that a short statutory deadline would increase hearings and administrative burdens.

Deputy Commissioner Danielle Albert of the Department of Labor said the department was neutral and that it interprets the original drafting to require providers to issue notice within the first window and request a hearing in the second window; the department noted the drafting could make the available overall time shorter depending on when the initial notice is sent, and recommended clearer language if the committee's intent is to guarantee a full period for providers to resolve disputes.

Committee action: After testimony and an extended discussion about amendment language and options, the committee voted at executive session to recommend Senate Bill 67 \"Inexpedient to Legislate\" (ITL), 18-0.

What changed in committee: Witnesses reported an ongoing negotiation over exact time frames (45 days, 90 days, or longer) and suggested alternatives including mediation, clearer definitions when the clock starts, and a post-negotiation optional extension if both parties agree.","Senate Bill 67 would set a deadline for medical providers to dispute workers' compensation bill payments; proponents said a limit would reduce years-long reopened claims, while providers and some hospitals urged a much longer window or alternatives such as mediation to avoid increasing hearings.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill would require employers to tell injured workers how much they may owe while on workers' comp

Committee hears testimony on bill to treat PTSD as occupational disease for first responders

Committee approves measure to exempt remote workers from two-hour reporting minimum

Panel debates time limits for medical provider disputes in workers' compensation billing