Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Lc178 Time Loss topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Stakeholders present red‑line for LC 178 to fix time‑loss calculation; SAFE reports 2.9% estimated actuarial impact

MLAC · January 23, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

SAFE, AFSCME and other stakeholders presented a red‑line for LC 178 to keep the time‑loss rate static (using the wage on the date of injury), clarify effective dates (on or after 01/01/2027), and preserve statutory minimums for permanent total disability; SAFE's actuarial re‑run estimated a 2.9% impact.

Stakeholders including AFSCME and SAFE told MLAC they worked to resolve concerns raised by the Workers' Compensation Division and the subcommittee, and offered a collaborative red‑line for LC 178. Elaine Schooler, assistant general counsel for SAFE, said the proposed language would calculate the time‑loss rate using the worker's wage in effect on the date of injury so that the rate would be static and not subject to annual recalculation that could increase litigation. "The intent was to utilize the workers' wage on the date of injury, that was in effect on the date of injury," Schooler said.

Schooler also said changes would be prospective — applying to injuries with a date of injury on or after 01/01/2027 — and that the red‑line preserves the statute's minimum for permanent total disability benefits to avoid reducing existing floors. Multiple stakeholders, including Kirsten (AGC) and Giovanna Patrick (claims attorney), reported reviewing the red‑line and signaled broad engagement toward an amendment. SAFE's representative said their actuarial team reran impact numbers with the proposed changes and produced an estimated impact of 2.9%, noting that is an estimate based on 2026 filings and historical patterns.

The committee took no final vote, asked for final amendment language from Legislative Counsel and for a bill analysis when the final text is available.