Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workers Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances workers'‑comp bill that reduces disability pay when post‑accident tests show impairment
Summary
Senate Bill 44 would create a presumption that positive post‑accident drug or alcohol tests are a major contributing cause of workplace injury; if not rebutted the presumption can reduce disability benefits by 15% or eliminate them entirely. Sponsor said the bill is intended as a deterrent and has broad advisory board support.
Senator Maeve Maine presented Senate Bill 44, telling colleagues the bill responds to serious workplace injuries and is intended to deter workers from being on the job under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs.
Maine summarized the mechanics: after a qualifying accident, a valid drug or alcohol test establishing a blood‑alcohol concentration over 0.08 or the presence of illegal drugs or excess prescription medication creates a statutory presumption that impairment was a major contributing cause. "Fifteen percent of the disability benefits will be lost if alcohol or drugs was a cause of the accident," Maine said, and "100% disability benefits will be lost if alcohol or drugs was a major contributing cause to an accident." The worker may attempt to rebut the presumption; if the worker rebuts the presumption but cannot disprove that drugs or alcohol were not a cause, benefits would be reduced by 15%.
Maine said the bill had committee support from the Labor Commission Advisory Board and other stakeholders, and that the objective is workplace safety: "We feel that this will deter accidents and make sure people are responsible when they come on the job." He described split‑sample testing procedures and stressed the bill leaves medical benefits intact even where disability compensation is reduced.
The Senate moved the bill to the third‑reading calendar after the sponsor’s summation. The bill’s proponents framed it as protecting co‑workers and the public by creating clearer consequences for impairment; critics on the floor asked questions about tests, rebuttal burdens and applicability across different workplace settings.
