Senate committee hears testimony for and against bill to add PTSD to North Dakota workers’ compensation

BISMARCK — Supporters of Senate Bill 2181 told the North Dakota Senate Industry and Business Committee on Tuesday that allowing Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) to cover post-traumatic stress disorder would help first responders and other workers harmed by repeated traumatic events. Opponents — including WSI and business trade groups — warned the measure is unclearly written, would likely raise premiums and reserves, and could overwhelm the state’s capacity to deliver timely mental-health care.

Senator Dean Rummel, R‑37, sponsor of SB 2181, opened the hearing with his reasons for introducing the bill, citing his 37 years in manufacturing and decades of volunteer firefighting and rescue work. “Post traumatic stress disorder or PTSD is real,” Rummel said, and he urged the committee to move forward so WSI “can implement PTSD coverage this year.” The bill would, as presented, limit disability benefits to 32 weeks per claim, cap lifetime claims to two per employee, require diagnosis by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist and include a sunset provision that would expire the coverage after a specified trial period.

Why it matters: Witnesses described repeated traumatic exposures faced by police, firefighters, paramedics and rescue workers and linked untreated PTSD to suicide, family breakdown and career loss. Dr. Gordy Leingang, a Bismarck emergency-trauma physician who has worked with law enforcement and military wounded warriors, told the panel that officers “expose themselves to COVID, hepatitis, HIV, shift work, death telling,” and said cumulative trauma contributes to PTSD and suicide risk. Aaron Moss, a registered lobbyist for the North Dakota Fraternal Order of Police, summarized his association’s view: the bill is needed because the current patchwork of resources leaves many officers without affordable, appropriate care.

Arguments from supporters and affected workers: Testimony from law-enforcement and fire-service witnesses emphasized access and cost barriers to effective PTSD treatment. Darren Shimke, president of the Professional Firefighters of North Dakota, cited published studies and department experience and urged the committee to prioritize mental-health services for first responders. Off‑duty trooper Steven Meyer and Mandan officer Jared Attanasio recounted local suicide losses and traumatic calls; Meyer said Minot Police Department had lost three officers to suicide in less than 18 months and pleaded, “Enough is enough.” Attanasio described long waits for care and insurance limits: “EMDR… takes 10 sessions,” he said; “it took me six months to see someone at Sanford Behavioral Health.”

WSI and business opposition: Tim Wallin, WSI chief of injury services, told the committee the WSI board “unanimously voted not to support this bill” and asked for more study. WSI and its director, Art Thompson, focused on multiple drafting issues WSI said need clarification: the bill’s proposed statutory language that would expand “compensable condition” to include mental injuries; the definition of “unusual stress” (WSI noted an existing unusual‑stress definition already appears in the North Dakota Century Code and recommended using the established text); whether the bill’s medical and causation standards would create litigation; and operational questions about whether WSI claims adjusters could or should be required to evaluate employer motives in personnel actions.

Business groups echoed WSI’s concerns. Eric Spencer of the Greater North Dakota Chamber and Brady Pelton of the North Dakota Petroleum Council said uncertainty about the volume and cost of PTSD claims could produce significant premium increases — a cost that would ultimately fall to employers and taxpayers. Spencer cited Minnesota experience documents provided to the committee showing large cost impacts in that state. Several industry witnesses and associations urged a comprehensive study before creating a new compensable category.

Key provisions discussed: Senator Rummel said SB 2181 would (1) create a PTSD coverage category with DSM‑5 diagnosis required; (2) require the condition to be primarily work related (WSI testified the bill would require PTSD to be at least 50% of the cause compared with other contributing causes); (3) limit disability duration to 32 weeks per claim and to two claims per lifetime; (4) include a sunset clause (sponsor described two biennia; the bill text discussed expiration July 31, 2029); and (5) take effect Aug. 1, 2025. WSI noted the bill as drafted did not cap medical-benefit spending for ongoing care and asked whether the disability period would be retroactive to diagnosis or begin at diagnosis.

Provider capacity and practical concerns: Committee members and witnesses raised questions about mental-health provider availability across North Dakota, especially in western and rural areas. WSI and others said paying for care is distinct from being able to ensure access to qualified psychiatrists and psychologists in a timely way; Art Thompson said the state “doesn’t have an answer for that either.” Several witnesses urged expanded local, department-level programs and improved EAP or peer-support services as part of any solution.

No final action was taken. The committee heard more than a dozen witnesses over roughly two hours; no committee vote on the bill was recorded in the hearing. WSI recommended additional study and more precise statutory language before the Legislature creates a compensable mental‑health category. Supporters urged the panel to move forward to give coverage to first responders now, while opponents said the economic and administrative risks counsel caution.

Looking ahead: The hearing closed with the committee’s announcement that it would reconvene on subsequent days. If the committee advances SB 2181, the Legislature and actuarial analysts will face questions about projected claim volumes, premium effects for public and private employers, capacity to deliver timely care statewide, and statutory language that clearly defines compensability and limits.