Senate panel weighs S.173 changes to speed vocational-rehab referrals after work injuries
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Testimony on S.173 centered on removing an initial state screening step and allowing injured workers earlier access to private vocational-rehabilitation counselors; claimants and a private counselor described lengthy delays that harmed workers, while insurers urged retaining gatekeepers to control costs. The Department of Labor signaled conditional support and suggested targeted improvements and stakeholder work before final action.
The committee examined S.173 provisions aimed at improving vocational rehabilitation (VR) services for injured Vermonters by reducing delay and improving notice.
Kelly Massacott, a claimant's attorney, summarized three goals in the bill: (1) better notice to injured workers that they may be able to request VR in the future; (2) eliminate an initial state screening that attorneys and counselors described as ineffective and causing delay; and (3) allow injured workers to initiate VR services after 90 days out of work if carriers have not done so. Massacott said the current screening can add months and that VR needs a broader overhaul.
Dirk Anderson, director of workers' compensation and safety at the Vermont Department of Labor, provided context and data: "Roughly on an annual basis, 2,500 Vermonters receive indemnity benefits," and about 10% of those cases are flagged as being out long enough to trigger VR screening. Anderson said the department is generally supportive of changes that eliminate delay and noted that departmental plan review remains a gatekeeping step to ensure reasonableness of proposed VR plans.
Karina Dunnigan, a private VR counselor, described a case in which repeated screenings delayed a full entitlement assessment for 18 months; by the time the worker was referred and found eligible, wage replacement had ended, the claimant had lost housing and could not meaningfully pursue retraining. Dunnigan used the example to argue that referring claimants directly to private VR counselors would speed assessments and improve outcomes.
Representatives of insurers, including Jamie Pien of Primer Piper for APCIA, cautioned that removing screening risks higher costs and urged targeted fixes or improved screening procedures rather than wholesale elimination; they emphasized existing department processes for dispute resolution and plan-review safeguards.
The committee discussed next steps: DOL offered to work with stakeholders and suggested charging DOL and interested parties to return with coordinated proposals; members asked for additional witnesses (HireAbility, insurers, VR counselors, AG's office, and claimants) at a follow-up session.