Senate Bill 57 would amend North Carolina’s Workers’ Compensation Act definition of “injury” and “personal injury” to expressly include breakage or damage to eyeglasses, hearing aids, dentures, and other prosthetic devices that function as part of the body. The bill is aimed at clarifying that these items can be treated as compensable when they are damaged in connection with a work-related injury.
The bill also states that eyeglasses and hearing aids are not to be replaced, repaired, or otherwise compensated for unless the damage to them is incidental to a compensable bodily injury. In other words, the measure does not create a broad standalone benefit for these items; it ties reimbursement to an otherwise covered workers’ compensation claim. The act would take effect when it becomes law and would apply to claims arising before, on, or after that date.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend G.S. 97-2(6) in North Carolina’s workers’ compensation statutes by expanding the statutory definition of compensable injury to include damage to certain personal assistive devices and prosthetics. This would affect employers, insurers, injured workers, and claims administrators by clarifying when replacement or repair costs for eyeglasses, hearing aids, dentures, and similar devices may be included in a workers’ compensation claim. The bill applies retroactively and prospectively to claims arising before, on, or after the effective date.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral and technical rather than controversial. The measure is framed as a targeted clarification to existing workers’ compensation law, suggesting a practical intent to address a narrow category of claim-related expenses. No recorded opposition or support is available in the provided context.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the scope of compensability: the bill covers damage to eyeglasses, hearing aids, dentures, and other prosthetic devices, but only when the damage is incidental to a compensable bodily injury. That limitation may matter to injured workers seeking reimbursement for damaged assistive devices without a broader bodily injury claim, while employers and insurers may favor the restriction as a way to prevent open-ended liability. Another possible issue is the retroactive application to claims arising before the effective date, which can affect pending or previously filed claims.