End of Session Wrap Up: Government Liability Legislation

previous post on Conduit Street summarized the status of various government liability bills that MACo considered or took a position on.  This post summarizes the final status of those bills.

Joint Committee on Workers’ Compensation Benefit and Insurance Oversight MembershipHB 40 / SB 1 adds a self-insured local government representative to the Joint Committee on Workers’ Compensation Benefit and Insurance Oversight.  The duties of the Joint Committee involve examining the condition of workers’ compensation benefit and insurance structure in the State, including the adequacy and appropriateness of all workers’ compensation benefits.  MACo supported the bill, arguing that self-insured county governments have unique concerns and issues, such as the statutory occupational disease presumptions for public safety employees, that are not shared by existing Joint Committee members.  Status:  Both HB 40 and SB 1 passed.

Workers’ Compensation Dependent Death Benefits:  HB 417 / SB 212 and SB 805 alter the existing workers’ compensation dependent death benefits system.  The bills remove the distinction between a “wholly” and “partially” dependent, set a 12-year cap on benefits subject to certain exceptions, provide benefits for dependents who are not spouses or children, and raise the allowance for funeral benefits.  SB 805, which was introduced at MACo’s request, also contains an “opt-in” provision for counties.  MACo supported SB 805 and supported HB 417 and SB 212 with amendments that would add the “opt-in” provision found in SB 805.  MACo argued that the “opt-in” provision was necessary because of the way the new benefits system would interact with the public safety occupational disease presumptions, potentially imposing an unfunded mandate on certain counties.  Under the “opt-in” provision, dependents of public safety employees subject to a  presumption would remain under the current death benefits system unless a local government decided to cover them under the new system by making a one-time election.  All other county employees are under the new system.  Status:  Both HB 417 and SB 212 passed with the MACo “opt-in” amendments.  SB 805 was withdrawn once the bill was no longer necessary.

Termination of Workers’ Compensation Temporary Total Disability BenefitsHB 889 / SB 413 requires an employer to pay compensation for temporary total disability (TTD) to the end of the period during which the covered employee is temporarily totally disabled, as determined by the employee’s treating physician unless the Workers’ Compensation Commission (WCC) has ordered an earlier termination date.  MACo opposed the bill, arguing that the bill would impose a significant fiscal impact on self-insured local governments and remove the existing ability of an employer to terminate TTD benefits if the employee refuses to submit to an independent medical evaluation, is found to be working for another employer, is not following a doctor’s treatment plan, or is collecting the benefits fraudulently.  Status:  Both bills failed.

Comparative FaultHB 1129 codifies the existing Maryland common law doctrine of contributory negligence.  The bill was a preemptive response to a request by Maryland Court of Appeals Chief Judge Robert Bell to have the Judiciary undertake a study of comparative fault and determine whether the standard could be adopted in Maryland via a judicial rule.  MACo did not take a position on the bill pending the outcome of the study but did submit a letter restating its long-standing opposition to the comparative fault standard.  Status:  The bill failed.

Civil Cases Challenging Constitutionality of Local StatutesSB 363 provides the State and local governments with notice and a chance to respond when a law is alleged to be unconstitutional in a civil proceeding.  The bill’s provisions replace similar law relating solely to declaratory judgments.  MACo supported the bill with amendments to preserve a local government’s existing right to receive notice and respond in a declaratory judgment action where a local government’s law is being challenged as invalid (which is a different standard than constitutionality).  Status:  The bill failed based on concerns over the significant number of notices the Attorney General’s Office would receive were the bill passed.

This Post Has One Comment

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Close Menu
%d bloggers like this: