Witness urges Vermont committee to end vocational-rehabilitation pre-screening after case examples of delays

Kelly Massicotte, an attorney representing the Vermont Association for Justice, told the Vermont House Committee on Economic Development on April 7 that the statute's pre-screening used to filter vocational rehabilitation (VR) claims is causing harmful delays and should be dropped or paused.

"The screening process that is now in the law should absolutely be eliminated," Massicotte said, reading from a redacted client file to illustrate how the process can trap injured workers in repeated reviews and prevent timely entitlement assessments. She said the state charges roughly $160 per screening and that carriers trigger screening when a claimant has been out of work for 90 days under the current rules.

Massicotte explained the legal objective of VR and the central concept of "suitable employment," which the speaker said requires considering pre-injury average weekly wage, full- or part-time status and commuting distance. She argued those nuances are too complex for a brief screening and that screeners sometimes answer the form's three gate questions in ways that foreclose referral to a certified VR counselor even when medical records and claimant statements suggest uncertainty.

She walked the committee through a redacted example she labeled "Sam," a stove installer injured in April 2023. Massicotte said the case was referred at the 90-day trigger but that the initial screening lacked recent medical records and the screener answered questions in a way she believes was improper. She described multiple subsequent screenings by different state screeners, delays of months instead of the 90 days the form contemplates, and a point at which the claimant had been out of work for 11 months without an entitlement assessment.

According to Massicotte, once a private VR counselor (identified in Senate testimony as Karina Dunnigan) secured access to the claim after the claimant obtained counsel, the counselor determined entitlement in six days and began services. By that time, Massicotte said, the worker had reached a medical end point, wage-replacement benefits had largely ended, and the claimant had experienced severe financial stress, including temporary housing loss.

"We cannot calculate what we are really losing by keeping the screening," Massicotte said, arguing that the administrative step intended to save costs instead shifts expenses and harms to injured workers and the system. She told legislators defense attorneys privately acknowledge the screening's shortcomings and urged immediate action: either drop the screening or suspend it while the committee studies alternatives and oversight.

Committee member Herb posed policy trade-offs, noting that the 90-day trigger does create a clear marker and asking whether other policy fixes or communications improvements could speed referrals. Massicotte agreed the 90 days can serve as a useful marker but said the committee should consider additional triggers, clearer communications from the Department of Labor, and stronger checks on screeners.

Members requested data from Department of Labor staff and from HireAbility to determine whether the examples Massicotte cited represent systemic failures or anomalies. The committee postponed further debate until after a floor session, with the chair asking staffer Sophia to walk members through the statute and rules that govern screening at the next meeting.

There were no formal motions or votes recorded during the session; discussion closed with committee staff tasked to obtain screening data and applicable rule language for S.173.

The committee is expected to resume discussions on S.173 after it reviews the requested data and the Department of Labor rules.