Bill would require employers to notify workers on long-term comp about potential repayment obligations

Senate Bill 169 would require employers who provide supplemental pay to workers receiving workers' compensation benefits to notify those employees of anticipated repayment obligations and repayment methods, supporters said at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing.

The measure, introduced by Sen. Cindy Rosenwald, aims to reduce “surprise” debts owed by employees who receive both employer-paid salary continuation and indemnity payments from workers' compensation insurers. Rosenwald said the bill would not shift costs from employees to employers; it would require routine, transparent communication so workers can plan for amounts they may later be asked to reimburse.

Rosenwald said workers' compensation benefits in New Hampshire are governed by RSA 281-A and usually replace roughly 60% of regular wages. She and firefighter union representatives described situations where employers had continued salary and benefits while a claim was pending, then later sought reimbursement from the employee when indemnity payments were approved. Brian Rill, president of the Professional Firefighters of New Hampshire, said the bill would require notice within 30 days of a long-term injury and then every 30 days thereafter, or earlier if the employer prefers, and would not change the employee's ultimate obligation to reimburse any duplicated pay.

The New Hampshire Department of Labor said it is neutral on the bill and flagged technical issues for the committee. Deputy Commissioner Danielle Albert and General Counsel John Gerrigan told the committee that the bill's notice requirements would apply to “supplemental pay,” a term not defined in RSA 281-A. The department said supplemental pay could include salary continuation or payments that make up the difference between workers' compensation indemnity and an employee's average weekly wage. The department noted that if such payments are treated as wages they are subject to RSA 275 (wage and hour laws), including frequent withholding notices and recordkeeping requirements. Albert said existing wage-notice obligations under RSA 275, particularly RSA 275:49, require employers to give withholding notices every pay period and to retain pay records for a defined time, which could be more frequent than the 30-day notice in the bill.

When asked about enforcement, Albert said employers who fail to provide required wage notices under RSA 275 may be subject to civil penalties. Committee members did not take action on the bill at the hearing; the sponsor and supporters asked the committee to look favorably on the proposal.

The bill would not itself change who ultimately owes duplicated pay; supporters said it only requires earlier and repeated written notice so employees are aware of anticipated obligations and repayment options. Advocates used an anecdote from Portsmouth where an employee was informed after returning to work that they owed their employer more than $18,000. Rosenwald and witnesses said the purpose is transparency so workers can plan rather than be surprised.

Supporters included the Professional Firefighters of New Hampshire; the Department of Labor testified as neutral and offered technical clarifications. No formal vote or amendment was recorded during the hearing. The committee closed the hearing and moved on to its next item.

The sponsor and Department of Labor officials agreed to work with the committee on technical language clarifying which forms of employer payments are covered and how the bill interacts with existing wage-notice and recordkeeping statutes.