House Commerce committee reviews proposal to remove initial vocational‑rehabilitation screenings from statute

The Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development on April 7 received a statutory briefing on proposed changes to vocational rehabilitation provisions in workers' compensation law, including a draft, S.173, that would delete portions of the statute governing initial screenings.

Sophie Zagatne of the Office of Legislative Council walked members through the current text and highlighted the portions the draft would remove. She summarized the statute’s entitlement language: injured employees who cannot perform prior work are "entitled to vocational rehabilitation services including retraining [and] job placement as may reasonably necessary to restore the employee to suitable employment," and she said administrative rules define what "suitable employment" means.

"The highlight is the language that's being taken out," Zagatne said when pointing to the current screening provisions. She explained the statute currently directs an employer to designate a vocational rehabilitation provider from a commissioner‑maintained list and that the rules establish certification and education requirements for vocational rehabilitation counselors.

Committee members pressed Zagatne on how the proposed draft would change who performs initial screenings and on the timing attached to screening eligibility. A member asked whether the entitlement and screening process is strictly tied to a 90‑day window of continuous temporary total benefit; Zagatne said the statute and rules reference a 90‑day period but she would need to confirm the exact placement and effect in the code. "I don't remember off the top of my head, but I can take a quick look," she said.

Members expressed concern that removing statutory protections for independent or certified initial screenings could create or reintroduce conflicts of interest. Several participants recalled that before 2007 initial screenings were performed by vocational rehabilitation counselors who were required to be neutral, and they said the change that assigned screening functions to the Department for Aging and Independent Living (DAL) had been designed to provide independent oversight.

A committee member argued for an independent reviewer: "I think it's vital for us that [a study is] put forward," the member said, adding that oversight by the Department of Labor could present a conflict because the department administers parts of the program. Members suggested the Department for Financial Regulation or an external neutral panel as alternatives and proposed a study group to compare other states’ approaches.

The committee also discussed worker protections and clarity. Members worried injured workers may not receive plain‑English explanations when screenings or assessments are denied and asked that any study or rule change require clearer reasons so workers and employers understand decisions and available appeals.

The committee examined compensation and fee issues related to vocational rehabilitation. The transcript references a $160 fee for an initial assessment and a roughly $95‑per‑hour rate for vocational rehabilitation counselors (and a notional $1,200 figure discussed in the course of the meeting); Zagatne said the vocational rehabilitation rule had not been updated on a routine schedule and that the department had been expected to reevaluate rates.

There were no formal motions or votes on S.173 during the meeting. Members agreed to continue work on the topic, to gather additional information (including examples from other states and carrier perspectives), and to consider placing H.803 into the bill for further hearings. The committee took a short break to check for additional witnesses and scheduled more testimony and discussion in a subsequent session.

The committee did not adopt a final position; its next steps are a staff‑led information gathering and a study work group to return recommendations and possible rule changes.