SB720 revises Hawaii’s workers’ compensation law governing independent medical examinations (IMEs) and permanent impairment rating examinations for injured workers. The bill replaces the prior framework that allowed employer-designated examinations with a process centered on mutual agreement between the employer and employee. Under the bill, the employer may appoint a qualified physician selected by mutual agreement of the parties to conduct the examination and submit a report, and the employer must pay for the exam.
If the parties cannot agree on a physician, the Director of Labor and Industrial Relations must appoint a duly qualified impartial physician, also paid by the employer. The bill requires written notice to the employee at least five working days before the appointment, requires the report to be shared promptly with the employee or representative, limits exams to one IME and one permanent impairment rating exam per case absent valid reasons, prohibits combining the two exams without the employee’s written consent, and caps the cost at the medical fee schedule’s complex consultation rate. It also defines “medical stability” for purposes of permanent impairment ratings and sets an effective date of July 1, 2025.
Impact
SB720 would amend section 386-79 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, significantly changing the procedures for medical examinations in workers’ compensation cases. It shifts authority away from employer-selected physicians toward a mutual-selection process, with a fallback appointment by the director when agreement cannot be reached. The bill also adds notice, timing, disclosure, and cost-limit requirements, and it narrows when multiple examinations may be ordered. These changes directly affect injured employees, employers, physicians conducting workers’ compensation exams, and the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a procedural fairness and transparency reform rather than a controversial policy expansion. The bill’s stated purpose suggests support for a more balanced examination process, with neutral physician selection and clearer rules for notice and report sharing. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented public debate or formal vote history to indicate broader legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s apparent intent.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns who controls the medical examination process in workers’ compensation disputes. Employers may view the bill as limiting their ability to select examiners and manage claim evaluations, while employees and worker advocates may support the mutual-selection requirement, advance notice, and restrictions on repeated or combined examinations. Another possible issue is the requirement that the employer pay for the examination even when the director appoints the physician, as well as the bill’s limits on examination costs and its definition of medical stability, which could affect when permanent impairment ratings are assigned.