Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workers Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates HB 23 over workers' compensation 'exclusive remedy' concerns but advances bill to third reading
Summary
HB 23 would extend workers' compensation coverage for certain work-experience and training participants (health-care only, not long-term disability). Supporters say it preserves training programs; opponents warned the change could undermine the exclusive-remedy system and shift costs to state subsistence. The Senate voted to read the bill for the third time.
Senator Jenkins moved to uncircle and explain House Bill 23, which would allow certain work-experience or training individuals to be covered under the Department of Workforce Services' workers' compensation fund for health-care costs but not for long-term disability.
Senator Maine and other senators raised concerns that the measure could chip away at Utah’s traditional "exclusive remedy" workers' compensation framework — a no-fault system that generally limits an injured worker to workers' compensation benefits rather than civil litigation. Maine said business groups worried that by covering only health care and not subsistence or long-term disability, the bill could create litigation risk and shift costs to state social-support programs.
Jenkins acknowledged the concerns but argued the changes are intended to keep volunteer and training programs alive. "We fear that it'll end up killing the program... this volunteer program... won't exist anymore," Jenkins said, urging colleagues to preserve the programs while they examine technical fixes.
After floor discussion and no recorded defeat on the motion, the Senate voted to read HB 23 for the third time (tally recorded on the floor: 27 yes, 0 nay, 2 absent). The sponsor indicated willingness to continue technical review and to consult business attorneys about narrow fixes.
What happens next: HB 23 was ordered for third-reading consideration; sponsors and stakeholders indicated they will further review exclusive-remedy implications and related liability questions.
