Amends existing law to revise provisions regarding medical examinations of an injured employee.
Summary
House Bill 115 amends Idaho’s workers’ compensation law governing medical examinations and rehabilitation for injured employees. The bill requires an injured worker, when requested by the employer or ordered by the Industrial Commission, to submit to a medical examination at reasonable times and places by a qualified physician or surgeon. It also preserves the worker’s right to have a physician of their own choosing present at an employer-requested exam, and it expressly allows audio recording of the examination by both the employee and the examining physician.
The bill adds a new limitation on video recording: video recording is allowed only if both the examining physician and the employee consent. It also clarifies that these recording rights do not apply to the testing portion of psychological, neuropsychological, or psychiatric examinations. In addition, the bill updates reimbursement rules for travel and wage loss associated with examinations and rehabilitation, including mileage reimbursement at the state rate, a 15-mile minimum trip threshold, and wage-loss reimbursement at the employee’s current pay rate or temporary disability rate depending on work status. The act is declared an emergency and takes effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill amends Section 72-433 of the Idaho Code, which is part of the state’s workers’ compensation framework. Its practical effect is to codify recording rights during independent or employer-requested medical examinations, limit video recording absent mutual consent, and clarify that psychological and psychiatric testing is exempt from the recording provisions. It also preserves and restates reimbursement rules for travel, subsistence, and wage loss tied to medical examinations and rehabilitation, affecting injured employees, employers, physicians, and the Industrial Commission.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be a technical but meaningful workers’ compensation update rather than a broadly controversial policy change. The absence of recorded committee debate or votes suggests no documented public conflict in the available materials. The bill’s structure indicates an effort to clarify procedures and reduce disputes over examinations, reimbursement, and recording practices.
Contention
The most likely points of contention are the new video-recording consent requirement and the continued balance between employer control of medical examinations and employee protections. Employers and examining physicians may favor limiting recordings to protect exam integrity and privacy, while injured workers may support the ability to document examinations, especially through audio recording. Another possible area of concern is the exclusion of psychological, neuropsychological, and psychiatric testing from recording rights, which may be viewed as necessary by providers but restrictive by claimants seeking transparency.