Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workers Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kelly Marsh tells subcommittee insurer notices misled her, urges passage of Injured Workers Transparency Act
Summary
An injured Charleston hairstylist told a South Carolina subcommittee that workers' compensation denials misled her and failed to explain appeal rights; supporters asked the panel to require plain-language notices on insurer denial forms under HB4750 to prevent missed appeals and lost benefits.
Kelly Marsh, an injured worker who said she became permanently disabled in 2020 after chemical exposure while working at a Charleston salon, told the Labor, Commerce and Industry subcommittee that the first communication from her workers' compensation insurer misled her and failed to explain how to appeal a denial.
The Injured Workers Transparency Act (HB4750) would add section 42-15-45 to the South Carolina Code of Laws and require any denial form used by a workers' compensation insurer to include explicit notices to injured workers — including that the insurer does not represent the worker, the right to appeal, how to appeal (forms and filing locations), and the applicable statute of limitations. The bill also would require insurers to revise forms to meet the new requirements by Jan. 1, 2027.
"It is legal to trick and mislead an injured disabled American worker," Kelly Marsh said, describing a 2020 chemical inhalation at Lourdes Loft Aveda Salon that left her permanently disabled at age 29. She told the committee that the insurer's initial phone contact sounded helpful but that the later denial letter contained only the terse statement that the claim was denied, with no explanation of appeal procedures or deadlines.
Her husband, Kent Marsh, said the couple received a single short denial about a week after filing and that they never received the state's courtesy notice that may have explained the appeals process. "What the letter did not say was anything about her rights," he said, adding that the lack of notice led them to miss the two-year statute-of-limitations window for appeal.
Representative Williams and other committee members asked the witnesses to clarify the timeline and details of the injury; witnesses said the injury occurred in May 2020 after the salon reopened under COVID-era cleaning protocols, and they described concerns about strong cleaning chemicals, possible improper dilution of products and poor ventilation.
Supporters of HB4750 told the committee the change is low-cost and targeted: rather than creating new benefits, it would require denial forms to plainly inform injured workers of their rights and deadlines. "No South Carolina worker should ever lose legitimate benefits simply because they weren't told they had the right to fight for them," Kent Marsh said.
The committee was designated testimony-only for the day; no vote was held on HB4750 during this session. The subcommittee said it will continue to receive feedback and keep witnesses informed of next steps.
