Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Good morning, everyone. This is the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is Wednesday, 03/08/2026 at 09:30 in the morning. So we're beginning our day to take a look at S one seventy three. We have Senator Weeks with us from Economic Development Committee, the reporter of the bill for the Senate. Good morning, Senator. Thank you for joining us. Good morning. Good morning to all.

[Sen. Dave Weeks (Rutland County) — Reporter of S.173]: Ready to go? Yes. Okay. Very good. So Senator David Leeds represent Rutland County. I'm reporting S-one 173 and act relating to workers compensation and the Vermont Labor Relations Board. So what we like to do is start out with to kind of articulate what the problem is we're trying to solve. So in this case, I'll just give you

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: a little data, I'll give you

[Sen. Dave Weeks (Rutland County) — Reporter of S.173]: a little background and I'll give you a very quick overview of the bill, see if you have any questions. Each year roughly sixteen thousand Vermonters are injured at work. Of that roughly two fifty workers each year which is about one point five percent are out of work for ninety days or more. The ninety day milestone for a worker out of work is very significant. At this ninety day point under current law, a worker is required to undergo initial screening to determine if the worker is entitled to a full screening with a vocational rehabilitation counselor. The vast majority of initial screenings are passed to the full screening and the initial screenings by non specialists are seen to be an unnecessary burden. All sides agreed in the review to build. So that's the problem we were trying to solve. So a little more background just to give you context of this environment. Vocational rehabilitation services are provided by workers injury prevents the worker from returning to a stable work environment or work employment for which the worker has prior training or experience. Vocational rehabilitation services are specifically tied to restoring the employee's earning ability. Services can take many forms which include resume writing, interview skills, counseling, other kinds modifications, assistance with job placement, vocational training, or education. Things which I think resume better. Most injured workers do not need vocational rehabilitation because they are medically released to return to work or the employer has suitable work available for the worker or the medical evidence already indicates that the worker will not be able to return to work given the severity of the injury. Okay, that's all background. So now to the bill, very short bill, two sections, two sections. First section, a vocational rehabilitation. This section provides a worker who requests services or has been out of work for more than ninety days. This section removes the initial screen because reviewed and is referred directly to a vocational rehabilitation counselor. Also in this section cements the Department of Labor's workers compensation form to explain that a worker has the right to request vocational rehabilitation services in the future should the injury continue to affect the worker's ability to earn the pre injury wages. So it's just kind of like okay they're in a they have a problem ninety days have gone by they've you know they they get their vocational rehabilitation training or not they understand by the form which firm believer gives them that they have a future opportunity that's all okay but that's not in current practice has to be verbally explained if in fact it's ever provided but anyway it doesn't change the right it just makes sure that the injured worker understands it And then allows the injured worker, this is significant, allows the injured worker to initiate rehabilitation services if the employer fails to. It doesn't happen very often but it happens. So this allows the employee to understand that they can initiate this process should the employer maybe not recognize that he didn't need, didn't, that it should or or some other circumstance. So, that's it. That's section one. Not too complicated. Section two, less complicated. Vocational rehabilitation working group and report. Creates a working group to provide recommendations back to the general assembly on how to improve the current system. The working group is composed of the director of workers compensation from the Department of Labor, two representatives of workers compensation claimants who lived experience, two representatives of compensation carriers with bank insurance companies, two certified vocational rehabilitation counselors, and that's it. The working group members, other than the director, who comes from a department signed by the Department of Labor, are appointed one by the speaker and one by the committee of commits. Okay, which I think kind of a new paradigm. Governor is not appointing. It's not staffed out with legislators. Okay, it's all folks with lived experience. There's only six, seven of them.

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: The first meeting of

[Sen. Dave Weeks (Rutland County) — Reporter of S.173]: the working group to be held by 08/14/2026 and may be up to five times. The group will cease to exist on submission of the report to the general assembly December 15, no later than 12/15/2026. And the bill sets forth a series of questions, which I think would gain great interest to you guys for the working group to consider. The Department of Labor provides support to the working group. The effective date of the bill as drafted and passed out of the Senate is 07/01/2026 and the witnesses I know that the chair has got a copy not worth my work through, but that's the extent of the bill. Any questions?

[Speaker 0]: Questions for Senator Reid. Okay. Oh, go back to. Oh, breaking down the road. Sorry.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Thank you very much. Any sort of issues that came up when you were delivering? Any is to resolve, you're just making difference in anything. No. In

[Sen. Dave Weeks (Rutland County) — Reporter of S.173]: the end, everything was just fine. Think that it was, you know, first, it was an issue of, oh, this is even necessary. There were, you know, there were we heard both sides both of the kids that had needed the services and those that had to pay for the services that thought maybe, you know, that the current procedures were appropriate but over time it became apparent to us that now the initial screening is not necessary just kind of a stumbling block and a bit of an obstacle That's really about it.

[Committee Member (Unidentified)]: Thanks Rick.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Pretty straightforward.

[Speaker 0]: Good, thank you. Thank you very much.

[Sophie Sedenti (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. Sophie Sedenti for the office of legislative council.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: I have

[Speaker 0]: a whole new subject to talk to you

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: about.

[Speaker 0]: Well,

[Sophie Sedenti (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, sounds to have done a pretty thorough job there, Seth.

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: But is it okay if I can share my screen?

[Speaker 0]: Yes, please.

[Sophie Sedenti (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So again, this bill is really focused exclusively just on vocational rehabilitation. And again, not everybody requires vocational rehabilitation. Typically, you're out on workers' compensation, you've been out for ninety days, that's sort of the trigger for doing at least an assessment to determine whether you need vocational rehabilitation services to get you back into suitable employment, I. Getting back to the burning, sort of the same money capacity that you had before.

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: So,

[Sophie Sedenti (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this again, as Senator Weeks just explained, this is just vocational rehabilitation statute. And so again, here at the top of page two, the new language makes it clear that an employee has the right to request vocational rehabilitation services in the future if the work injury affects the worker's ability to earn the workers pre injury wage. So this is addressing a situation where you may not need it right now, but because the injury that you suffered at work is going to impact you in the future, that this is giving workers the right to seek vocational rehabilitation services at some point in the future, not right at the moment. And again, a lot of these are going to be deletions to take out this image of screening. So again, this is moving towards having vocational rehabilitation counselors doing the screening. The current system through the Department of Labor, the screening is done by members of the Department of Aging and Independent Living. The testimony has been that they're not particularly happy about doing it, they're not necessarily familiar with the workers' compensation rules and again you'll be hearing from the Department of Labor, so I won't go into that too much. So essentially what these amendments are doing on page two is really stripping out the references to initial screenings. So that's what all of this is doing. And then as we get down to F here, this is making sure that injured workers, if they are not referred for vocational rehabilitation services, that they are aware that they can initiate services themselves and with their own chosen vocational rehabilitation provider, if the employer or the employee's insurance carrier has not referred them for an evaluation within the ninety days. And then again, Senator Rutland testified there was conflicting information about how well the current system is working and there are flaws in it and so the proposal from Centre Economic Development in this bill is to go ahead and create a working group to provide some recommendations to the general assembly on ways to improve the current system, both to make sure that it meets the needs of workers to arrange it and also that the system works in a time being cost effective manner, so taking into account cost to the system itself as well. And then this goes through the membership of the working group, again being led by the Director of Workers' Compensation and Safety,

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: and then with

[Sophie Sedenti (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: two representatives from the Workers' Compensation claimant end of things, one appointed by the House, one appointed by the Senate, two representatives from on top of employers and insurance carriers, again, one appointed from the House, one appointed from the Senate, and then two vocational rehabilitation councils that are certified in Vermont, again, one appointed by the House and one appointed by the Senate. I will just note one of the issues that came up that isn't addressed that you may want to consider as an amendment, is this is not explicit that the Director of Workers' Compensation and Safety would serve as the chair. So it does provide, as you'll see as we go through this, that he may call the first, which he won't know, but the director would call the person to, but it may be worth just adding some clarification in there to make clear that the director is anticipated to be the chair.

[Speaker 0]: Doesn't we usually say the commissioner of the Department of Labor designates and the commissioner would designate the

[Sophie Sedenti (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It does say, well, we have it as the director of workers' compensation and safety or that designated.

[Speaker 0]: The Commissioner about that.

[Sophie Sedenti (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, then, so again, group would meet over the summer to discuss recommendations on how to improve the target system and to prepare recommendations for the general assembly, and then it lists out what some of those questions could be. So what mechanisms could better identify which claimants are likely to require the services?

[Speaker 0]: The way I read it is that working group, these questions are the only things that they can consider. Is there any other language that says that they any other thing that might come before the working group?

[Sophie Sedenti (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's not that open ended. I mean, says they shall consider these things. It doesn't say they can't consider anything else, but that may be something to ask you to consider giving some flexibility on that. So, yeah, this just lists out the particular questions. So again, how to better identify which claimants might need the services, could the utilisation of the services be improved by enabling claimants to access vocational rehabilitation benefits while receiving wage replacement benefits, so some of the information or the testimony in Senate Economic Development was that injured workers receive wage replacement benefits, but sometimes by the time they're receiving vocational rehabilitation services, they're no longer eligible to receive that wage replacement, so they're not able to take advantage of the vocational rehabilitation services. So it's a way to think about, can you align it so people can actually be accessing these services while they're still receiving wage replacement benefits? And again, the diminished capacity of the claimants who are unable to earn a pre injury wage, but are not eligible to receive permanent total disability benefits, should the average weekly wage be indexed to the cost of living for vocational rehabilitation purposes, What improvements could he aid? And if some of the current requirements are too onerous and administratively unnecessary, there was some testimony that maybe there's just too much, and again, maybe this is more to do with the initial screening, but are there ways to streamline the process to make it more effective? And then could there be improved oversight by the Department of Labor? And then is there a way to make these services more cost effective for the workers' compensation system as a whole? So again, it's trying to find that balance between the needs of the injured workers, along with the costs on the other side. It provides that the director would call the first meeting on or before August 14. This is quite a tight timeline here. The Department of Labor would provide the administrative, technical and legal assistance, and then the report would be due on or before December 15, and would come to this committee, as well as to the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs with its findings and any recommendations, then the working group would cease to exist. The compensation and reimbursement, this bill should go in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee. There's no appropriation being requested here. The reimbursement of expenses would come out of the Department of Labor's budget and there was testimony from the Department of Labor that they thought they would be able to do that out of currently appropriated funds. That's it. The other piece is this bill does not include an effective date right now. The effective date is 07/01/2026, that's kind of the default by statute, but that would be something else, if the committee is interested in making any amendments to just officially add in an effective date to it.

[Speaker 0]: Questions for Sophie?

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: K. Great.

[Speaker 0]: Take your selfies.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Good

[Speaker 0]: morning. Thanks for joining us.

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: Good to see everyone. Legislative affairs director at the Vermont Department of Labor. Thanks for having me today to talk about S-one 173. This obviously is a bill that originated in the Senate. We were invited in to testify twice on this and we gave a couple of different points of testimony, but overall we are comfortable with the bill as it's written in. Although our legislative council did just write up a couple of valid points. We have found that the initial screening is unnecessary. As Senator Rutland testified, most of the folks that go through that initial screening are deemed original and any that aren't. It's mostly just a, it has to do with the timing of when they're going through that initial screening. So, they may not have fully gone through all of their medical appointments. They may not be deemed quite ready to get to that point yet because they're not at the point where they're no longer improving at all medically, and that's usually where Voc Rehab will then come into play, is if individuals have gone through any medical appointments, any physical rehabilitation, and then they're at a point where they have reached their, it's called the maximum medical improvement, and that's usually where they would be referred to both rehab.

[Speaker 0]: Is there So, to get to their maximum medical improvement, Wouldn't it I mean, I can I guess I can understand removing the initial screening, but at that point, wouldn't the the medical providers send that letter to the employer, meaning and when we say employer, just also committing the suburb? When we say employer, we're talking about the workers' compensation insurance company carrier.

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: So my best understanding of the system, Attorney Bassett got me as well, more Jamie's here too. Information, yes, well, is that they've gone through initial they're out of work for four days, and then they would be considered eligible for wage replacement or indemnity benefits. Around so just as kind of some numbers, around two thousand four hundred two thousand five hundred Vermonters receive these wage replacement and then around 10% of those, that's right, two fifty to 300 people would then go through it. So they're out of work for the ninety days that would then trigger the carrier's notification responsibility. And so then they would go through that initial screening with hireability folks. Then once hireability is deemed them, yes, you're ready to go on to the next stage of screening, essentially, it would go to the carrier's book rehab screening. And then that screen would then determine if there's going to be a work plan that is filed by the carrier, that then goes to the Department of Labor, which we screen as well before that's approved and then they're ready to go on to the boat rehab plan itself. So this initial screening is, we would think it's unnecessary just because they've already been out of work for ninety days. They're going to go to that second screening anyway, most likely. And so this would just remove that initial step that might prevent them from getting to their benefits a little bit faster. If they're not deemed eligible, they would be Again, it's usually just because of those medical benefits that they would have to go continue having that treatment.

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: I'm happy to explain the process more for everybody when they testified.

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: That answer your question?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. I we dealt with this a number of years ago. I remember going through this and starting to come back. And then yeah. Cool. Okay. We can we wanna hear from higher ability. I don't believe the senate heard from them.

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: They did not. We spoke with them, and

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: they think

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: that they're comfortable with it. Folks that are doing the screening have not been trained in vocational screening for this, for workers' compensation, for the purposes of workers' compensation. Certainly, the screening sometimes can take their it's supposed to only, it's supposed to take ten days, but sometimes it does not, meet that ten day threshold. And like I said, they have not necessarily been trained in this type of screening. And so there may be some inaccuracies and some things that need to be adjusted or fixed afterwards. I would be happy to provide community assistance with contact for viability and

[Speaker 0]: We'll touch base with Matt. Yeah. Do you have data that shows from year to year how many people wind up in full rehab and are we seeing, is it fluctuating every year or are we seeing it drop because businesses are making sure that safety protocols are being followed?

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: I don't have a deal on meetings, but will definitely, I'll find that. I

[Speaker 0]: think it'd be interesting to find out, make sure that safety protocols are being followed. Mean, you're always going to have accidents, but the more we can do to prevent accidents, the cheaper, or keeping the rates down for workers' comp is.

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: Absolutely. Yes, I'm most likely to find out and follow-up with the committee.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, thank you.

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: I think the only other point, unless you have any other questions right now, would be on the study committee, which we are also comfortable with. To the legislative council's point, we would be comfortable with the commissioner being the work designee being named, the person to call the working group together and then chair it as well, just for flexibility in case it is needed at some point in time to ensure that the system, it is also, has the legislative council set the quite a tight timeline as well. So if the committee wanted to push this out, it may be easier to really produce a very thorough report and to be able to have the time needed and also in between to be able to reach individuals to able to do the research that they needed to talk to any constituents or clients and make sure that we really have all the information that we need to answer their questions properly.

[Speaker 0]: You have a suggestion?

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: I think pushing it to 2027, December 2027, should work fine.

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: 11/01/2027, just to make sure we hit all of our deadlines for Yes.

[Speaker 0]: The draft. Second year of the Biden campus.

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: Yeah. Early in the year of October would work fine. Just maybe to have, like, an additional six months, honestly, would probably be helpful.

[Committee Member (Unidentified)]: Yeah. That is a very tight

[Speaker 0]: time. Yeah. By the time it yeah. By the time we get get everything set up, it's gonna be at least September. Yeah. It's mostly. Yes. Okay. The commissioner's comfortable with being able to the primary being able to reimburse expenses. We are comfortable that it should work

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: within the prior budget, and if it's also distributed over a longer time frame, it would be easier as well, given the different fiscal years and the different budgets.

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: The number of meetings is the right number of meetings, even if we're yeah, think it was five. Yes. Expenses for not more than, second to expenses for not more than five meetings, if we're extending it out Is

[Speaker 0]: that the right number? You

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: want to get back to us?

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: Yeah, let me get back to you on that, if that's okay. I will speak with the commissioner and then talk to see what he thinks of the attendance.

[Speaker 0]: I think it probably could be even extending the timeline. I think a lot of work can be done by the department in between meetings, so the meetings could stay that way and still a lot of research can get done.

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: Yeah, let

[Speaker 0]: us know what your thoughts are.

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: Yes. And our director of workers' compensation is out this week, so he's unable to attend today. But if you would like me to come in as well next week to talk about further and answer any other questions that I can't today,

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: I'm more than happy to put that in.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. We'll set it up for next week. We think this associated, the trustee of the Bravant can't make it in, this might not be able make it today, so we want to give everyone an opportunity to speak. I think I want to have a conversation with CCY if the Senate did that, just to make sure that having to price out this bill should have been neutral, it's going to cause workers to come up, it could be a deep dispute, they just don't understand how to go. Okay.

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: Any other questions I can answer right now?

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: Good morning. Thank you for having me, Kelly Massacott. I'm here on behalf of the Vermont Association for Justice, which was the trial lawyer of some of

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: the changes our name. More gentle. I don't know if that joke about wearing a cape,

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: I guess. So I'm a partner at the Waltham with Big and Fox Skinner here in Mount Folier. I've basically been doing workers' compensation for twenty years. I also did a lot of social security disability work for a number of years, but basically it's all workers' comp for me representing injured workers. And this bill is really pretty minor in terms of getting rid of that initial screening. And I'm very glad that on the Senate side they sought to add the summer study because honestly there's a lot of waste and inefficiency in this Voc Rehab side of the comp system. And it needs to be totally overall and improved. I'll just mention there was an attempt to change some rules around Voc Rehab several years ago. And I led the fight to fight those, and they didn't go through because it wasn't enough, frankly. We really need to fix voc rehab because there is a lot of waste and inefficiency in the system. So I welcome the summer study. I welcome the additional language so that the summer study could look at other ways to improve voc rehab and not just those specific questions, because I do think that there's a very small number of people, injured workers who need this benefit, but for the people who need it, they really need it. And we need to figure out how to get those people that benefit earlier and make it meaningful for them. There's so much ways going just to a lot of reports, a lot of counselors just going and meeting with people, and then not a lot of actual real benefits going to the injured workers who need it. So just to back up a little bit, so there's four main benefits in the workers' comp system that an injured worker could be entitled to. And this is the last of the four. And the way that I explain it to a client that I might be meeting with for the first time is Voc Rehab is supposed to help those injured workers whose work injury leaves them unable to make that same kind of money they were making at the time of the injury for that job. So I just wanna make this point because it's very important. It's different than a personal injury claim. If I, as an attorney, decided, I'm gonna take a summer off from my law firm, I'm gonna go pick potatoes for the summer, and I get injured picking potatoes and I haven't practiced law for six months, but I get injured picking potatoes and I get a brain injury and I can't really pick potatoes anymore, my voc rehab, I'm gonna be entitled to it, but my voc rehab benefits are about trying to replace the wages I was making picking potatoes. Workers' comp doesn't care about what I was making as an attorney and trying to replace that wage, even though that was my earning capacity. If you get injured in a motor vehicle accident and it's some other driver's fault and you're suing or making a claim for a personal injury claim, in a personal injury claim, you can go after compensation for, I used to be able to be an attorney and now because of this accident, I can't anymore. Even if you weren't practicing at that time, if you still had that capacity, you can't do that in workers' comp. It's the job you had and the earnings you had in the six months prior to, assuming you're still continuing that, it's the job you had and are continuing to do until the injury. So it's those wages we're trying to replace. It's not your earning potential. That's a really important point. And if you have the capacity to earn that same kind of wage, even with the injury, you're not going to be entitled to Voc Rehab. So it's a very small subset of people that are actually entitled to this benefit. But again, we need the people who are going to be entitled to be found entitled earlier and to get started on it earlier. Because there is this mishmash in the comp system where people who may be entitled to the benefit And let me be clear, we don't always know early on. We can't always forecast that. And sometimes it's going to take a while before that can be identified and confirmed because the medical evidence can't confirm it until there's more treatment and we're seeing how they recover. So sometimes it is on hold that we can't determine that the person's entitled to voc rehab. But with my experience as a social security disability attorney and doing this for twenty years, sometimes I know the injury, I've seen it enough times, I know that the treating doctor is gonna support me to say, Yeah, that person's never going back to doing boiler work again. They're probably not gonna be able to be on their feet again considering the severity of this particular injury. If I can get that person starting to work on some computer classes while they've got two years, while they're still recovering from this injury, boy, do I want them to start on those computer classes. All of the evidence shows that somebody who is geared towards having a plan, focused on returning to work and engaged in that is better for them. It's better for their recovery. Not only that, but the way the consciousness works is the wage replacement benefits right now are not tied to Voc Rehab. A lot of people may not be identified as being entitled to these benefits until they're actually at the end of their medical recovery. That's when their wage replacement benefits get cut off. They might be entitled to a little bit more money in the claim, maybe a lot of money depending on their injury, what are called permanent impairment benefits. But it's not tied to their wage replacement. So the earlier we can identify these people in the medical recovery process, and it's not everybody. Again, we might have to see how they're recovering. Some people can be identified much earlier in the process. And if they're getting those wage replacements because they're recovering from surgery, they're having a bunch of PT, they need another surgery. If they can get the voc rehab benefits while they're being paid because they're out of work and recovering, that's better for everybody. A lot of people are not getting, especially if they don't have a counselor, they don't have good counsel, they're not being identified until the end of the medical recovery process. And frankly, they're being squeezed and screwed. They're like, Okay. And this is if they have a good voc rehab counselor. And I hate to say it, the vast majority of them, and that's why the summer study should be reviewing this, they're not great counselors, the vast majority. And I'll go on the record saying it. We need better counselors. That's it. It's counselor who says, Oh, you're entitled to this benefit. A lot of the people say, I can't afford to do it. I gotta get back to work. I have to work. Somebody's telling me I'm entitled to this much in permanency benefits. That's only gonna last so long. So it's great you're telling me I'm entitled to this benefit, but I can't even take advantage of it. The Senate side heard from a workers' comp VR counselor who I would welcome, please have her testify or listen to that testimony. She explained how broken the screening process is. It was meant as an attempt to try to expedite and make it more efficient. It doesn't work, folks. Get rid of it. And with all due respect, you don't really need to listen to hireability, but have them come in. They're not trained, the state VR folks are not trained on the workers' comp side of things. They don't know what is the trigger for eligibility. The form that they're being asked to use and ask the injured worker, it's way more nuanced than the three questions that they're being asked to ask the injured worker. It's so broken. But the VR counselor from workers' comp who testified on the Senate side explained she had a client and she saw what happened prior to it reaching her. The person was sent for screenings at the ninety day mark, which frankly doesn't always happen. And it doesn't even happen 50% of the time. It's supposed to happen at ninety days out of work. A lot of time there's a lag there on the carrier side, which is why we want this provision in here that says at ninety days, the injured worker can do it. The injured worker can trigger it if the carrier hasn't. When I started practicing twenty years ago, we were allowed to do that. We were allowed to file the form. And then at some point, one of the claimants attorneys checked with the DOL, and the DOL said, Legislature hasn't specifically condoned that, so I guess you can't

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: do it.

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: We've been doing it for years, but what is that? Ask for I apologize, permission, whatever that saying is. Please let us do that because under the law right now, once a viewer counselor is assigned, I'm allowed to switch them anyways. I can choose my own counselor anyway. So just let us file the form if the carrier hasn't done it. So the VR counselor who testified for the Senate explained in that case that she had, the screener was assigned. The screener looked at the evidence and said, for a guy who, I believe he installed stovepipes, very, very heavy work, I wanna say he was in his late 40s, he had an injured foot and ankle, Even though the evidence, I would know looking at this, yeah, this guy's probably gonna need voc rehab, send it on. The person said, no, but send it around for another screening in another two months. Three months later, it goes for another screening. The guy tried to go back for work. It was unsuccessful. He's got a non healing fracture in his foot. Send it for another screening in another sixty days. Like it's not going to the next level, which doesn't even mean he's entitled. It's just that would mean going to a VR counselor who knows workers' comp VR. That's what is being held back. It's still stuck with the state hireability folks. So now it's at the second screening. Sixty days later, that person now understands they're headed for another surgery, actually. And then they also learn that the employer says, We're never taking this guy back unless he's 100%. Because I know from my experience that somebody with a foot and ankle injury is likely not with this kind of They're never going back to this heavy work with this kind of ankle injury. It's not a good idea. Send it back for another screening in another sixty days. And finally the guy hires an attorney, not me, somebody else in my office. She's jumping up and down. She's BS over this, guys. She finally gets him beyond the screening through the VR counselor within the workers' comp system. The guy's at medical endpoint, meaning he's at the end of his medical recovery when he finally meets with a VR counselor who can try to put together a return to work plan to figure out, How can we retrain you? How can we get you back to making what you were making before? The guy can't afford to do a plan. His wage replacement benefits are gone. He begs his doctor, Can you please release me to do work on my feet? I have to provide for my family. By this time, he's living in a hotel, by the way, because workers' comp only paid two thirds of what you were making prior to your work injury, because it's not taxable income. And at some point, I guess people thought people paid a third income tax. I don't know. But most people, all my clients are doing worse on workers' comp, not better. People are losing financially when they're on comp. So this guy finally is put in touch with somebody who knows what they're doing for voc rehab, but he can't even utilize it. And he's pushing his doctor to do something that's not medically recommended. Let me go back to work on my feet because that's the only kind of job that somebody's gonna hire me for. And so is he likely gonna have another workers' comp claim someday? Yes. That's bad for everybody. Not only is it bad for the injured worker, it's bad for employers, it's bad for the business, it's bad for the system. Go ahead, yeah. Thank you very much. I am speaking up this next week. Can I ask, are we seeing the list of questions for two For the summer study? Yes. Sure, yeah, yeah. If

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: you One of things that came up as you may have

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: heard is, oh, the wording group shall consider the following questions. I'm open. Any improvement. And I'm

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: just curious, do you find the list, I think there's eight questions there, are they adequate for the issues that you're sort

[Speaker 0]: of flagging right now, the narrative?

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: I think they're a great list, but I absolutely support it being more open ended so that if the group thinks of more ways to improve the system, that they could consider those. I don't think it should be limited to that list. But I do think that there's a number on Yes, I think there's

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: If there are other questions that you would think, hey, this would be a good

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: thing to ask. I think it's a great place to start, yes. I can't think of any right here that I'm like, oh, they missed this question or that question. But I don't necessarily think it should be confined to that list. If the group gets together, because I do think the other stakeholders here, the carriers, the business leaders, everybody should be part of this, the top notch VR counselors, because I'm sorry that right now what the statute says about who is a VR counselor who's certified under the comp system, they don't even have to take any sort of Vermont test. I mean, I think you could be a I don't think you have to be a counselor in vocational. I think you can be a mental health counselor and become a voc counselor for workers' comp. I mean, need to have more stringent standards. They need to do less busy work on these reports. There needs to be, in my opinion, the person at the DOL who oversees the voc rehab issues should themselves be trained in the voc rehab side of things, the person deciding the issues on voc rehab stuff when there's a dispute. But back to the bill, it was well meaning to have the state folks do the screening. It just hasn't worked out in practice. And I have to be honest, just doing this for twenty years, it's not just that there's a delay. I'm very fearful that sometimes they're getting it wrong. And they're saying, No, this person shouldn't go on to the next level of having the workers' comp VR people review and do an entitlement assessment. I think that there's cases certainly where they're actually getting it wrong and not sending it on and just saying, You're not entitled. You don't even go to the next step. You're all set. The truth is we have this ninety day trigger. Somebody's out of work ninety days and that's like the trigger to try to identify filtering, might you be entitled to this I have to tell you, that actually doesn't catch everybody who might be entitled to this benefit. An employer who accommodates somebody, somebody has a work injury and the person might never go out of work or go out of work a short time, an employer tries to accommodate them. And I appreciate that because all the studies show people do better who continue working. I want that. We all want the injured worker to do better. But if that person is making less money after the work injury because they're in a different position, they might be entitled to Voc Rehab. And that person's not gonna be caught by the filter of, Have you been out of work ninety days? The other thing I wanted to clarify is I think Senator Weeks might've misspoke slightly when I might've heard him say that they're obligated to be screened. That's also not entirely correct. A lot of people get the form that says, You've been out of work ninety days. Are you interested? A lot of people answer no. They don't know what this means and they don't know what they're giving up, potentially giving up. Because again, a lot of people are not entitled to the benefit. I totally welcome this study. Again, the VR, for the people who are entitled, who would be entitled, it is such an important benefit. And for them to be involved in the process and to be identified earlier, there's a lot of people with a lot of great skills and businesses need these people. We need a better way for employers and businesses to identify these, to be matched up with these workers earlier. It would save carriers money. My clients would do better. They would be getting back to work better. The whole system would be better. There is a lot of inefficiency and waste right now on the voc rehab side. But this very, very small start of getting rid of this unnecessary step of screening by the state folks, please, folks, let's do it. Hireability agrees. They know that they're not the best people to do this, honestly. Thank you. I'm very passionate about this, obviously.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. So, thanks

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: very much. Yes, you are passionate about this. That's good things. So, what I was hearing you say seemed to be focused on the issue of that folks who are injured aren't getting the benefits earlier when they could benefit from it. That's what I was taking away from my view.

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: For both rehab, yes.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: So, I confess, I'm just looking at the list of questions this morning. That doesn't wrap me as part of I think there are a lot of details and questions, but the sort of big picture of how do we get folks who might be eligible for benefits earlier, doesn't leak out to me.

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: Number one, sorry to interrupt you. What mechanism could better identify which claimants are likely to require voc rehab services? Number one.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Well, okay, I'm just saying that somehow the, I mean, you could better identify it one hundred and twenty days from there. But I think your point was trying to get some sort of determination of eligibility sooner. Not just correctly, but soon.

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: Yes, and I think it's number one. And frankly, I think it's also number two. If there was, and I'm not saying, it's a suggestion that came up in the Senate that one of the senators asked me when they understood this thing about, wait a minute, people can't take advantage of voc rehab because their money runs out. If there was a tie between the wage replacement and Voc Rehab, don't you know the carriers would make sure they hit their Voc Rehab a whole lot sooner? That's number two there, right? Could utilization of Voc Rehab be improved if they get their wage replacements with Voc Rehab? And I don't know what other states do, right? I'm not sure what other states do. It's something to be considered about it. Better counselors. If there were better counselors, that would deliver more efficient, quicker services. The folks that I think know the law, know the rules, deliver better services, they're getting quick results. They're identifying the people earlier and they're getting services and benefits to the people earlier. It's not an exhaustive list. I welcome any ways to improve the system, honestly.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Yeah. As

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: I said on the other side, this is against my own self interest because a lot of people feel squeezed and then they're like, I guess I'll settle my claim out. I make a fee when the case is settled. I'd rather my clients get real prehad benefits, honestly. I really do. A lot of people are very cynical about both. They're like, Oh, it doesn't work. It doesn't matter. Like, it should work. We need it to work for people. Too many people's work injuries leave them unable to, if they can't get back to the money they were earning for the injury, it just is so broken, this system, and it shouldn't be. It's minor stuff that they might need, a class or something, just to be able to get back there. Another problem, and it is in the list here, is we're trying to replace their wage at the time they got injured. Sometimes that's three years ago. Should be every other benefit where we're looking at the wage they were making is tied to is there's a cost of living adjustment. Why is that not included? I was just talking to a client yesterday and I was like, Yeah, you were injured four years ago, but we're stuck with that wage. That's the wage we're trying to replace. Every other benefit in the system, the wage replacement and the permanency, benefits from a COLA, cost of living adjustment. And I do think with voc rehab, that should be considered as part of it too. Just my thought on it. Obviously, there's other stakeholders and they have their opinions about that as

[Speaker 0]: well. You.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Thank Thanks. You were mentioning that there are currently trained up counselors that are doing this work in 2025. This might not be a pretty good question, but do you know just sort of proportionally how many of the folks are actually well trained in

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: this area? So the people that do the initial screening, as I've said, are state folks and those I think that you should get rid of. Can't think on the list of certified rehab counselors. I'm not sure, Rowling. There's probably a couple of dozen. I could look it up when somebody else is testifying. Honestly, if I could be totally honest, when I meet with a new client, I'd say there's a couple of dozen and there's less than on one hand, how many I think honestly are worthwhile to work with. If I could be totally honest. I really think, I mean, I'll probably get some hate mail after this testimony, but I really think that there's just not a lot of great counselors out there. They get referrals directly from carriers. They want ongoing business. And I think we need more stringent standards for folks. And a lot of people learn by the people who train them. So I'm not even sure if a lot of it is intentional. I think we need to require higher standards so they can deliver better services. It's not all simple.

[Committee Member (Unidentified)]: Who determines these folk rehab counselors? How do they, is there a certification process? Do they make a deal with an insurance company?

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: So How do they get their by statute, it lays out what the requirements are. Sorry, by rule, statute and rule. And then they're listed on the Department of Labor website. And then there's different companies. Some companies are large. They might have 10 on staff. Some people are solos, and they might be a one person show. And carriers right now will issue what's called a VR1 assigning somebody. But as soon as they do that, I can file what's called a VR8 and say, I don't want that person, I want this person. Which is why I think it's a no brainer that I should be able to file my own thing if they haven't assigned somebody after ninety days. That's the other frustration is right now, if the carrier hasn't done anything after ninety days, I have to kick and shove at the DOL. Could you please have the carrier send this for screening? And then I check-in after a few weeks. Did they send this for screening? They didn't. They didn't upload the medical records. Could you please bug them to send So us for I'm waiting for somebody at the state who's not well trained to do something I don't think they're really gonna do maybe properly. It can take months. And then it finally goes to the VR counselor. That can be a delay. Having the ability for me just to file it shortcuts it. And that's for people who are represented. Obviously, there's a lot of unrepresented folks who wouldn't know how to avail themselves necessarily of that process.

[Committee Member (Unidentified)]: So just to follow-up, these counselors, are they self employed?

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: Some of them are. Some of them work

[Committee Member (Unidentified)]: So for large they're supposed to be appointed by the state.

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: Yeah, they're not appointed by the state. The carriers refer them and then an injured worker or their attorney is allowed to change and pick somebody different. But they work for private companies. Yeah. Okay. The people who actually provide the services. Yeah. We're trying to eliminate that first step of the hireability folks, the Dale and hireability folks doing that initial screening, which really is unnecessary. Yeah,

[Committee Member (Unidentified)]: mean, that helps because if we're gonna, if they need to be better trained, that helps me to understand where we can address that.

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: Right. I think the state folks doing the screening, just eliminate that. It's not a matter of training. It just is the wrong people to do it. And then the summer study, I think, is the folks to look at how do we improve the people really determining eligibility and the entitlement assessment of injured workers and working with the injured worker, if they are entitled, to figure out a return to work plan and what plan should be, the training or education should be. I think it's the summer study people to look into that and see what different qualifications or background. I mean, honestly, I think a test of some sort would be good. Right? Right now, there's no Vermont specific test that these folks have to do to prove that they know Vermont workers' comp voc rehab rules.

[Committee Member (Unidentified)]: Now are you, are there other states where they have a test?

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: I don't know. I just know I care about Vermont and our system and how we deliver good services for our injured workers. One of the larger employers of both rehab counselors, I think one of the people that trains their new I didn't even know I don't know that person. I've never seen them deliver services. They're the ones training the new people. Think they need to be familiar with remote workers from appropriate roles.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Can you remind me, so the VR, either solo or part of a company, get paid by the carrier and send it. Is that the right way? Yep. And so what's the I still I should ask. I'm curious. It's but what's the sort of the ongoing relationship between the the folks who Is there any ongoing relationship between the VR folks and the carrier or they just pay the bill?

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: They pay the bill. I think certain company My understanding is they might have an ongoing contract, but because I always have the right to change it, they can't mandate that all of their claims have that company's rehab counselors. They may always initiate, we're going to use this company's voc rehab counselors, but since the injured worker can always choose a different one. Unrepresented injured workers don't likely understand, or even if they did, they may not know who a good or better counselor is. So they're not going to switch it out necessarily. I have had cases where I've heard from both rehab counselors, I refuse to work for that insurance carrier. They want to pay me less than what the statute basically Like there might be an agreement with certain companies and carriers, voc rehab carriers, to pay a lower rate than what the statute actually might call for, for voc rehab.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Miss Charlotte, and who initially signs the VR counselor? Is that the Carrier.

[Speaker 0]: The carrier?

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: Carrier does. Which is, again, something we're hoping with this bill would change if the carrier hasn't signed someone after the ninety days. Right now, that's the trigger. And that's something that the summer study would look at. Is there a better trigger than out of work for ninety days? Right now the trigger is somebody's out of work ninety days and the carrier is supposed to send this along for consideration. And the bill does say, Hey, if they haven't sent it along after ninety days, let the injured worker or their attorney assign a counselor. And again, when I first started, we were allowed to do that. And then at some point, the Department of Labor said, the legislature didn't specifically give claimants that ability, that right. So it has to be the carrier to do it. Because I have the right to switch the counselor as soon as they assign it, just give me the right after ninety days to start the process. It's again, another way to just be more efficient, start the process sooner. This bill right here really is a no brainer for just trying to be more efficient about the current process. And then let's all think about how to make this better. Cut down unnecessary costs, identify the injured workers who really need these benefits, and make it better for everybody. I mean, want injured workers to go back to work sooner. I want them to be able to get back to their average weekly wage. And I don't want unnecessary When I see the closure reports and sometimes see how much is spent, or when I switch over a counselor because I just take on a new client and I switch the VR counselor that may have been on the file with that person unrepresented for two years, and I see how much that VR counselor who I don't think is very good has charged on the file, that's when I see what they charge. I get mad. It's wasted money. It's not money well spent. If Carrier's spending that kind of money, let it go and she services my client really needs. Not a lot of reports with a lot of words and not a lot of outcome. That's right, outcome. Look, some cases, voc rehab is going to be expensive, people. I'll be honest, it's going to be expensive. Serious injuries, it's going to be expensive. It has to be. But there's a lot of cases that people just don't even need it, or it's going to be cheap, especially if it gets identified early. But paying somebody just to drive back and forth to an injured worker's house once a month to just go sit in their kitchen and chat it up without really I I did have a defense attorney tell me recently, she assigned Vocabrio as soon as she got on the file because she said, Wow, it's a way for my client to really get in there and get contact with your client. It's another way to get in there. It wasn't about offering services. It was about, oh, you're an attorney on the file. We can't talk directly to your client anymore. If we have a VR counselor on it, they've got an in with the injured worker. So We need to fix the VR system.

[Speaker 0]: I think, yeah, I think we need to really look at the questions that are being asked. I think they need to go a little deeper than what they are right now. When you talk about VR counseling, I would think that the working group should really look at what's the certification process. Should it be a licensure? Should they be licensed in the state of Vermont? Who provides the training for the ER counselors. I mean, there's a lot of things there, I think, that really need to be looked at. I know when we talked about this number of years ago, we were worried at that time that the carriers or the employer was having a counselor when someone's in the Northeast Kingdom and they have a counselor from Bennington or Troutinborough, having, you know, of that time is spent driving, right? And I think we've made some adjustments at that point, but it sounds like more adjustments still.

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: Emily? Actually, we found the list.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Yeah, and now that I'm looking at it, to share Marcotte's point, there are a number of folks that are registered out of the state of Vermont. And I'm wondering if this is like, over time, has this become sort of a telehealth kind of assessment or how much this- Sometimes they might

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: be using a centralized address, even if they live locally. There are some that are out of state, and that also doesn't make sense. You don't know the local labor market. You're out of Massachusetts. And listen, I have a client right now who was injured in Vermont. She worked for the state of Vermont. She happens to live in Massachusetts in the northern part. So there are It's not that there's no injured workers in Mass. But if you're a VR counselor located out of state, I don't know. Does it make sense that you're assigned to people in Northern Vermont? That definitely happens. Because maybe they work for Gen X or one of these bigger companies, and they have an agreement with certain carriers that you're gonna For all of our Form one, VR1s, which are the assigning of the VR counselor, we have an agreement with your company. All of our Form VR1s are gonna go to you guys. So they do have centralized addresses sometimes. A lot of the counselors do just work out of their homes and leave from their homes and go. But unfortunately, we don't have There are spots where there are not houses located. Deserts, we are in deserts, I would say. And when I say there's only maybe a handful that I think are really excellent, that there's a lot of desert for me. I'm begging certain people, When do you have an opening?

[Speaker 0]: Kelly, can you put together something that you can send us in writing of everything that you've been talking to us about? Sure. Because I think we wanna use that and match it up to the questions that that that the senate has put in. Sure. And I think we need to redevelop those questions to make sure that we're getting at what we want, the answers to the questions that we're asking.

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: Sure. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: I appreciate that. Other

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: than just having another question that kind of says and anything else that the committee feels would improve the system.

[Speaker 0]: Well, I think they're saying, you know, I think you know what the questions were how they were developed and what how and what they might mean to you. Yeah. But I don't know that for a committee to take a look at, they might not understand what your depth was. I see. So, like, one, I think we want to get deeper into, you know, be our counselors, and that understanding and a better understanding of, you know, the length of time. Is one hundred and twenty days correct? Or should there be the ability to assess each individual with a maximum of ninety days, so that there can be this spread of, you know, if you're out of work and you go back to work, like you were saying, but you're in a lower paying weight, you get a lower wage for doing a different job, then really want those people to be able to get back to work if possible and make the same wage they were making. Yes. So, I think we want to put more meat on the bones, I think.

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: Sure, absolutely. And I will mention, is one of the questions in there is about, there is a subset of injured workers I want to mention that is never going to be able to get close to what they were making, who is also not There's this other benefit called permanent total disability. Like you're never going back to work, not even the very lowest minimum wage, whatever. It's a huge loss of earning power and there's no compensation for that person. And so there's the consideration. And again, I don't know what other states do and that's something that can be looked into. Should there be something for that type of person? And it's a very small set of people, but I've had a couple of those clients over the years, and it's usually an older worker who is five or ten years from retirement that is not totally disabled. It's not that they can't do any, any work, but boy, they've lost a lot. And I just don't know if there's anything to perhaps compensate that person. But that's just one of the things. I'm happy to prepare something like that to review and look at each of these questions to kind of talk about what it would address. And then the other points I've made today about the deficiencies in the system right now.

[Speaker 0]: And I think you brought up what other states are doing. So what do other states do when it comes to VR counselors? Do they license them? How do they make sure that they're qualified to do the job? What does certification mean in other states?

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: I will try to talk to some resources within the American Association for Justice that I might be able to tap into with seeing what they can help with with seeing what other states do with that.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. But I I think that could be part of the questions too. In the questions for the for this this working group to to figure out. Just take a look. Make sure you're looking at other states. What are other states doing in that's

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: round two? And I'll I'll I'll be honest. We can't make it so onerous that we don't have enough counselors to actually be doing the work. That's another.

[Speaker 0]: Exactly. That's another. We can't

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: have it so onerous that they're going to charge so much that there's, you know, carriers can't pay it. There's not people doing it. Know, that's enough. I I understand the balances here.

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: You want

[Speaker 0]: to make sure that people that are doing it are qualified.

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: Absolutely. It's a real frustrating there's there's a lot of cynicism on both sides of this. Defense attorneys and people on my side, the plaintiff's attorneys, for sure.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. There's gotta be there's gotta be some floor standard that people have to meet, become a VR counselor. And then how do you hold them accountable when they're not performing?

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: And I do, as I said earlier, and I'll just repeat it, I do think the position at the Department of Labor overseeing this should be somebody trained in both rehab.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Yeah, just to follow-up on that, I think part of your testimony again, to talk about how do we get folks counseling, good counseling at an earlier stage. And I appreciate that people really work hard on the questions. From someone just coming to look at it right now, that doesn't. So maybe, if you're looking at how other states handle the VR certification and licensing process, I'd also be interested what are the procedures in terms of timing for how you access those benefits. That sounded like

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, and I think we need to understand what can be done by rule. So, what can Department of Labor do by rule? And what needs to be done statutorily?

[Committee Member (Unidentified)]: So just a thought. Would it organize the working group if we started out by saying almost like there's almost like a vision for the system? Like, we want a robust system with qualified workers with early intervention when possible. It's almost like here's a vision of a really highly functioning system that's affordable. Then the questions listed after that. Just a thought. So, like, three sentences of, We want an affordable system that serves Vermonters, and here's the questions about how we can get there.

[Committee Member (Unidentified)]: So I'm just doing a little searching here. And there is a gold standard of certified rehabilitation counselor That's nationally recognized. Also, Virginia and Florida have documented certified credentials for that. And there's also the federal government for vocational rehab counselors for federal cases. So those might be some good places to start.

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: And it might be better to have like Corina Dunigan or anyone, someone else, she's the one who testified about the specific facts on the screening issue on the Senate side. I do believe that they may have to have that national certification. It's the Vermont specific that's the problem. I think Voc Rehab is a different animal in many states. I believe some states allow you to hash it out. There can be an identified, okay, you can take this benefit or you can take a monetary dollar amount. They're in the statute. I think some states may not even have oprahed up. I'm not even sure. I think it's very different in different states. The fact of the Vermont specific is a big problem here that I think that needs to be addressed, that there's not to be a voc rehab counselor in Vermont in workers' comp. I don't think you have to prove any proficiency with regards to the Vermont workers' comp rules or statutes. That's a big problem that I

[Sophie Sedenti (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: see here.

[Speaker 0]: Any other questions for Kelly?

[Kelly Massicotte (Vermont Association for Justice)]: Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thanks for the invitation to this morning on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. APCIA is a national trade association with over a thousand or so members writing all lines of property and casualty in Vermont including Workshop and he used to be here on S-one Hundred 73. Think we've had some comments on the Senate side. Let me start by saying, you know, it's our shared goal to help injured workers get back to the job and we believe effective Voc Rehab is a tool to help accomplish that. Me just also start by providing a little bit of some data, really like data in here, so a little bit of context behind the comp system. We know it's a different type of an insurance line, The licensing and premiums are handled by the Department of Financial Regulation and the benefits and the overall system handled by the Department of Labor. Workers compensation carriers and DFR rely or consider a lot of information that comes from the National Council on Compensation Insurance. So that's the NCCI entity that Chairman Marcotte was mentioning before that is yet to weigh in on this bill. But they provide through their services, data tools, compensation information, among that data shared to the department and to carriers are what's known as projected loss costs for the coming year. And loss costs are the portion of indemnity and medical costs and they are the significant driver in workers compensation premiums. And over the last several years, we've seen a notable trend that I think is Rick highlighted. In 2017, there was a 7.9% decrease in loss costs. 2018, point 7% decrease. 2019, 5.1% decrease. 2020, 11.6% decrease. Jamie, are

[Speaker 0]: those decreases year after year? So they're compounding? Correct.

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: These are largely a reflection of efforts by DFR to focus really on some high risk occupations and to try to bring those costs down. And I won't bore you, but twenty twenty three six point seven percent, 2024 flat, 20257.4% decrease. So one translation might be, you know, the system's working to help bring costs down. Obviously, voc rehab is one piece of the overall system, but this is significant and worth noting. But despite all of that, you know, Vermont still has, at least compared to nationally, premiums that are above the national average. So it's good, a good trend line we don't always have a chance to share in the charts. Speaking to the proposed bill, I know you're focusing a lot on the study and rightfully so with the commission, I'd love to be able to check with my clients to see what questions that will be asked as well because one piece that was of course of importance to insurers and employers was cost effectiveness and you know, that lens of making sure that you know, this isn't sort of an open ended check And this mascot's right, every state is different in terms of voc rehab, but maybe you look at the benefits, you know, I hear from ABCI carriers again that Vermont's an expensive voc rehab state compared to other. So what are those factors that make it more expensive than some other states? I'm not prepared to address those today, but certainly that could be something that the carrier on the community could bring up. It's important I think for that lens to not be forgotten in terms of cost effectiveness.

[Speaker 0]: Well, yeah, I mean, it's not just cost effectiveness, but it's also effective outcomes. So if we're paying a bunch of money here and our outcomes are here, there's a problem. Then how do we fix that problem?

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: And remembering our shared goal to get to get you reported back to work. Mean whatever helps to do that ensures a big fill in this point of view. Section one, it doesn't have a lot of attention hit this morning, but that removes in its entirety of the screening process that I imagine was put in place for a purpose. There's been some discussion, it feels a little bit like deja vu to me, you may recall last year's workers' comp bill and the issue of penalties and fees and whether insurance companies were paying late on purpose or whatever. This committee was very interested in the data related to that. So you asked for us, rather report to start coming in. I feel the same this way. It seems sort of anecdotal in the absence of data. So I'm encouraged to hear you request for that information from the department because what I hear from ATCIA members is that they don't hear of problems with injured workers getting access to book rehab, don't hear of a political system. So again, they're questioning the need for this particular division. I'm a little confused about some of the data being discussed because I heard in the Senate Committee from the Department that forty percent of those in the screening process were deemed not to be eligible for a full agreement on screening. So I encourage you again to look into those numbers. That sounds like a pretty significant number. It sounds like there's some impacts on place whether or not a portion of those are further reviewed and entitled to move on. I don't know. I don't have those numbers. We haven't been presented in those numbers on what's been suggested when we're on the other side. And I hear lots of, you know, sort of faults or accusations related to the current screening process. But again, you know, from our perspective, this seems to be an issue, right, to just roll into the study rather than take it away with its entirely to ask the questions about you know what are the appropriate counseling if the ones who are doing it now aren't happy

[David (Attorney/Advocate, affiliation not specified)]: with their job or they're

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: not the right ones let's find some different counselors. There seems to be a reason for the screening If the questions are being asked now aren't the right ones, what are the questions that should be asked? If the information isn't reaching claims, whether they're represented by attorneys or not, let's find out why it's not reaching claims rather than removing a process that it's faced at least as far as I've heard, to be doing some level of its job and throwing it in its entirety and the absence of information that's nothing quite seen right from our perspective. So I'll stop there. Happy to follow-up as the community continues to do so well if it's not, you're be lighter or not or not, but in terms of trying to come up with some issues with the study might look at. Carriers will

[Committee Member (Unidentified)]: be a part

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: of that obviously, again the cost effectiveness or cost in general I think will be important and to have some voices on the committee to look at that will be helpful to the discussion.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Questions for Dave? Herb? Yeah, so thanks very much. You mentioned, I think, know, a few elements in the cost loss picture, and I think medical costs, just payment benefits, and then there's a VR cost in there too for the insurance. And maybe this is something that you need to get back to your boat, but it'd be interesting for me to see how those different components of changing the time too. And frankly, how much is VR actually costing? It'd just good to know whether it's a small amount or is it, you know, something

[Speaker 0]: material. Yeah. Agree. I'm happy to look into that.

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: Obviously, loss costs are one element as I mentioned, it's the majority that goes into the premiums, but utilization of services, payroll, wages, you know, all these, food free out the benefits in general, administrative costs, insurance Dreaded administrative.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Sorry. No way to. I have one follow-up, and that is, know, I think, you know, here's some testimony about, you know, trying to get injured workers involved in rehab sooner rather than later kind of thing. Is that a goal that you folks share? And if so, you know, Anthony, but at some point, it'd be interesting to know what things you, if you agree with that goal, what you could look at. And I'm thinking of the questions, making sure that those questions answer the options

[David (Attorney/Advocate, affiliation not specified)]: should be done. Thanks for

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: that question, because I don't want to give the impression that nothing's done for ninety days, right? Insurance will diary the case and they might have a trigger at eighty five ks and send to vocally up. But Carris will also send physically send someone out to the injured worker to see how they're doing and look at options to get them back prior to that ninety day period. I'll come back with some more examples of what

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: happens with them. Yeah and any sort of conclusions about or recommendations you have about accomplishing that goal. Great.

[Speaker 0]: And then on top of that, what happens, for example, Kelly Micklus, worker goes back to work, but they didn't go back into the same job that they had and they're working at a lower wage job. What happens there? Would VR counseling be appropriate then? Do they get a partial payout because they can't earn as much as they were earning before? I think it'd be good for us to understand how that works. Jonathan?

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: Thank you for the information about I think you've a nice trend in those losses or decline those losses year over year. Is there a commensurate decline in housing? I'll have to look to see what the action is. The Department of Labor is that GFRs can also share, Like any claims, I'm sure there's, you know, there's ups and downs. I like you mentioned that it's, and as know, sure you said, it's, there's complications to it, because there's the way that are entitled to versus, you know, what we're having. So I would say that it wouldn't be as simple as a one to one relationship but an understanding in any claims going down is also you know it's nice to have it at the one hand and losses in

[Legislative Affairs Director, Vermont Department of Labor]: the other.

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: Absolutely and as I mentioned those other factors can help push back on decrease in loss costs like maybe a company increase their wage, employee force or their wage base went up. Another way of looking at the number of claims might be how often this is being realized. Those are factors that can either enhance or push back on the loss cost of change.

[Committee Member (Unidentified)]: Just get back to the VR counselors. Do you have any feedback mechanisms there where I'm assigned a counselor by the carrier and they're just doing a terrible job?

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: Is there what an

[Speaker 0]: 800 number that I can call and

[Committee Member (Unidentified)]: send out surveys? Is there any feedback system? Yeah, let look into that if

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: I can a little bit more because I was, it know, interesting discussion this morning hadn't come up in terms of the qualifications of their counselors in Vermont versus elsewhere.

[Speaker 0]: Well that can be costly to the area. If they have someone that's doing some part of job and not being able to get that worker retrained and back into the workforce, carrier is just paying, paying, paying. They're paying for the VR counselor and they're paying for wage replacement. To their benefit, would have level 12 of efficient counseling. But as Ms. Marcotte pointed out, the claimant is also entitled to switch counselors. Questions for David? Thanks again for the invitation to come in. Always enjoy. Thanks, We look forward to hearing from you out of that. So thank you. Paper? Did you wanna have you down? Did you wanna weigh in?

[David (Attorney/Advocate, affiliation not specified)]: Appreciate you taking the time on this bill and we're very supportive of lifting this forward. We think any opportunity to get our workers either retrained or back to work is a positive opportunity, both for them individually in their lives, but also broadly for our economy and for the workforce. I mean, we know that one of the biggest problems in Vermont right now, right, a big problem for Vermont is getting enough workers in the workforce and most

[Speaker 0]: of the

[David (Attorney/Advocate, affiliation not specified)]: ongoing issue. So the extent to which this screening process, which we agree with Kelly's given unnecessary and has caused the ladies to the extent to which this screening process can be eliminated and people can go through the entitlement assessment and give the actual Voc Rehab counselor to gauge in their future look life. We think that's a positive step forward. Also, think this study is very helpful. I'm sure there's more questions that can be asked and including one where as we, I think Ms. Marcotte alluded to when somebody is done with their compensable part of their workers comp life, but continue on Voc Rehab, they may not be in a place to go back to work, but they're no longer receiving any compensation that puts people in a difficult position. So I think among the issues that this committee should look at is there maybe an appetite for compensation for people at some level during the rehab process when they haven't returned to work, but their indemnity benefits, their wage replacement has ended. So just something to think about. I've practiced workers' comp law myself and have seen both the positives of work rehab, where people have been retrained. I remember a case client that I had that was pretty seriously injured. She was a blacksmith and was able to go to school and get retrained and go on to have a successful career, and was very grateful for the system. Other times there have been instances in which the system both because of delay but also just because of the effectiveness of the system didn't work as well. And those were, I just should mention, those were the people that were represented by attorneys. I think the vast majority of individuals in the workers' comp system are represented, so we have to think through the lens of how to make this system easier, better, more efficient, and more effective for them, for the people that are trying to navigate it on their own, which is it's difficult for attorneys to navigate it. It's a specialized area of practice, there's not too many workers' comp attorneys out there, And so imagine trying to navigate that on your own as an unrepresented claimant talking to insurance companies having to deal with adjusters in a world in which their lives have just been turned upside down by a work injury to no fault of their own. And so making a system and I think getting rid of the screening process, making the system run more smoothly so they can actually get toward their goal of returning to work or finding alternative work through the voter rehab process, I think it's a really important thing for workers in Vermont. I

[Committee Member (Unidentified)]: realize this would be highly situational, but has there ever been any discussion some of these people who were working in these trades, got injured and cannot return to those trades, about retraining them as teachers to teach our youth from CTE?

[David (Attorney/Advocate, affiliation not specified)]: I haven't had a case like that, I think it's certainly a good idea. I mean, retraining is an available option. It just depends, some of the factors to consider is like how, depending on the injury, how long can they

[Speaker 0]: be on their feet?

[David (Attorney/Advocate, affiliation not specified)]: Do they have a sedentary work condition or can they be physically active? But I think it's a good idea, it's certainly, if it's something that that person is interested in pursuing. Think it would be great if they were given an opportunity to do that. But again,

[Speaker 0]: individual, what the individual would like to do too.

[Committee Member (Unidentified)]: Right, that is a highly situation.

[David (Attorney/Advocate, affiliation not specified)]: But it is, know, I'll just say in the time that I did workers' comp cases, it's really frankly, I mean not to be knowledge dramatic, but it's heartbreaking to see somebody who's spent their entire lives making a decent wage, certainly in physical labor jobs, where all of a sudden a back injury means that they can't do profession that they had done for decades of their life. And now have to, many of my clients who are in their 50s, 60s, having to face something totally outside of what they know and what they've been able to do. And that's why if we can really make sure that the Voc Rehab System is something positive, plays a role and is effective to get quickly for them. It can help them not just with their, how to earn the previous wage and things like that, but sort of in the mindset that there is a future for people, because too often, you see the fact of being out of work as sort of cycling through people and the depression, mental anguish, all of a sudden somebody's been out of work for six months or a year, they don't know what they're doing, their future is in, their sort of financial future is in jeopardy because the compensation part of workers' comp comes to an end, you know, and the fear of that is real. And then in some ways, profound, you know, makes the injury even worse. So the physical injury then has sort of mental health manifestations that cause further problems for the individual. So getting this vocal rehab piece right, getting them in early and having the person that knows what they're doing effectively analyzing what they can and can't do for their future, think is essential, not just on the economic side, but the actual health of the person. We'd So be excited if this building to move forward and happy to work on with others on the study side of things to make sure that it really addresses all the issues that we that we wanna address.

[Speaker 0]: Other questions for David?

[David (Attorney/Advocate, affiliation not specified)]: Thank you, David. Thanks so much.

[Speaker 0]: Well, I know we're waiting for Amy. You And think you're gonna need me from Judith? Or I think that's Is Amy gonna be

[Dave (American Property Casualty Insurance Association)]: Let check on. She has

[Speaker 0]: a drink. Okay. Why don't we take, like, a five minute break? We check here for 11:05 because we have more presenter coming in at 11:05. We can go up live. We're