Assembly passes bill removing labor-market-attachment requirement for many temporary workers’ compensation claimants

The Assembly voted Wednesday to pass legislation amending the Workers’ Compensation Law to remove the requirement that claimants with temporary partial or temporary full disabilities demonstrate ongoing attachment to the labor market in order to continue receiving benefits.

Sponsor Assemblywoman Cruz said the existing rule forces injured workers to document job-search efforts while they are receiving medical care and rehabilitation and can be “onerous” and counterproductive to healing. She said the bill will spare claimants from repeated filings and reduce litigation before the Workers’ Compensation Board, potentially saving administrative resources.

Opponents argued the change would encourage some workers to remain on benefits instead of attempting to return to work and could increase employers’ insurance costs. “It is not unreasonable to ask people to make an attempt to try to seek work they can perform,” an opponent said during floor debate, noting concerns about fraud and malingering; another member, a former workers’ compensation judge, said many claimants want to return to work and that the bill will help remove treatment denials that delay returns.

Under current law, claimants deemed permanently disabled no longer have to show market attachment; the bill extends the no-attachment rule to temporary partial and temporary full disabilities, which may be payable for up to 10 years in some cases. Sponsors said the bill preserves anti-fraud mechanisms (investigations and referrals to the Inspector General) and does not alter the ability of employers to accommodate work or of courts to reduce benefits when someone returns to work.

The Assembly recorded the vote and passed the bill (Ayes 102; Noes 42). The measure’s text directs that removal of the labor-market-attachment requirement applies only while the worker is receiving workers’ compensation benefits; if the worker is later found able to work, benefits would end as under current law. Sponsors argued the change will reduce litigation at the Board and free resources for substantive disputes about entitlement and treatment.