Delegates hear competing views on HB 106 to expand 'first responder' definition to MDOT workers

The committee heard pro and con testimony on House Bill 106, a proposal to expand Maryland's statutory definition of "first responder" to include selected Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) employees.

Sponsor Delegate Kevin M. Harris said HB 106 would recognize MDOT workers who respond to road incidents — emergency response technicians, facility maintenance technicians, and vehicle service and recovery technicians — and provide them the protections and recognition afforded other first responders. Harris noted MDOT employs about 27,100 people who "are on the front lines during severe weather events," and he sought a favorable report.

Several MDOT employees and union representatives described hazardous work conditions and examples of being first on scene. Wynd Johnson, president of Local 631, told the committee his members routinely work in life-threatening situations, described instances where he and colleagues were the first at scenes of fatalities and had to take emergency actions, and asked the committee to pass HB 106. Juan Carter of Local 1803 and other MDOT witnesses echoed those accounts, saying MDOT personnel often clear routes, stabilize scenes, and reduce risk for the public and emergency responders.

Committee members probed specific consequences of reclassification. Delegates asked whether the designation would bring presumption rules for workers'compensation, eligibility for specific tax or benefit offsets, or additional state liabilities. Witnesses said many MDOT employees currently do not receive benefits such as presumptive workers'compensation that some other first responders receive and that the fiscal note did not account for all potential downstream impacts. Committee members — including Delegate Kerr and others — raised concerns the fiscal note omitted potential cost implications such as expanded workers'compensation presumptions or new benefit eligibility.

The Maryland State Firemen's Association testified opposed, saying DOT duties "do not meet the definition of a first responder whose primary directive has been directed by the 911 Center" and expressing concern about where the line would be drawn if the statutory definition were expanded. The association's representative asked that local options and narrower drafting be considered and warned of potential unintended consequences.

Several delegates recommended sending HB 106 to subcommittee to refine language: suggestions included narrowing covered classifications (for example, excluding facility maintenance technicians), clarifying that inclusion does not equate to making MDOT a public safety agency, and better defining which job functions would qualify. The committee planned to assign the bill to subcommittee for further review.