Parity in Workers’ Compensation Recovery Act of 2025
Summary
This bill amends the District of Columbia Workers’ Compensation Act of 1979 to allow a worker or dependent to pursue a District workers’ compensation claim even if compensation has already been paid or awarded under another state’s workers’ compensation law for the same injury or death. In other words, an out-of-state award will no longer bar a District claim.
The bill also requires any District award to be reduced by the amount already received or awarded under another state’s workers’ compensation system, preventing double recovery while preserving access to District benefits. The measure is titled the “Parity in Workers’ Compensation Recovery Amendment Act of 2025” and applies to claims pending as of the effective date of the 2022 emergency act, as well as claims filed after that date.
Impact
The bill changes D.C. Code § 32-1503(a-1) by overriding any contrary rule that would treat an out-of-state workers’ compensation payment as a complete bar to a District claim. It expands the ability of injured workers and dependents with multi-state claims to seek compensation in the District, while preserving an offset for amounts already paid elsewhere. The act applies retroactively to pending claims covered by the 2022 emergency act and to later-filed claims, and it adopts the Chief Financial Officer’s fiscal impact statement.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong, unanimous support: the Council approved the bill 12-0 on first reading and again 12-0 on final reading. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, but the recorded votes suggest broad agreement that the bill corrects a fairness issue in workers’ compensation recovery for claims involving more than one state.
Contention
The main policy issue is how to balance access to District benefits with avoiding duplicate compensation. Supporters appear to favor parity for workers who have claims connected to multiple states, ensuring an out-of-state award does not foreclose a District claim. Any concern would likely center on the offset provision and retroactive application, but no recorded opposition or transcript-based objections are available in the provided materials.