Relative to workers' compensation indemnity benefits percentage.
Summary
HB 744 would increase the workers’ compensation indemnity benefit rate in New Hampshire from 60 percent to 66 2/3 percent for two categories of benefits. First, it raises temporary total disability compensation for eligible injured workers whose average weekly wage is above 30 percent of the state average weekly wage. Second, it raises permanent partial disability compensation for workers who have reached maximum medical improvement, can return to work, and have a qualifying impairment, increasing the weekly payment formula from 60 percent to 66 2/3 percent of the wage-loss difference.
The bill keeps existing limits in place, including the cap tied to the state average weekly wage and the 262-week limit for permanent partial disability payments. It would take effect 60 days after passage. The fiscal note says the bill does not include funding and would likely increase expenditures for the state, counties, municipalities, and other public employers or insurers, but the exact cost is indeterminable because it depends on claim volume and wage levels.
Impact
HB 744 would amend RSA 281-A:28 and RSA 281-A:31-a, changing the statutory percentage used to calculate workers’ compensation indemnity benefits for temporary total disability and permanent partial disability claims. The practical effect would be higher weekly payments to injured workers covered by these provisions, with corresponding increased costs for employers, insurance carriers, and public-sector entities that pay workers’ compensation claims. The bill does not alter the benefit caps, duration limits, or eligibility framework, only the percentage used in the benefit calculation.
Sentiment
The available materials suggest generally favorable treatment of the bill in concept, as it is a straightforward benefit increase for injured workers and there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes showing opposition or amendment activity. The fiscal note acknowledges higher costs but does not characterize the proposal as controversial. Because no vote history or hearing testimony is provided, the overall sentiment can only be described as neutral-to-supportive based on the bill’s purpose and the absence of documented dissent.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely fiscal impact: the bill would increase workers’ compensation payments for both private and public employers, including state agencies, counties, and local governments, and the fiscal note says the resulting expenditures are indeterminable but expected to rise. Any debate would likely center on whether higher indemnity benefits are justified by the added cost to employers and public funds. No specific objections, amendments, or stakeholder positions are included in the provided record.
Removing fees and charges for governmental records under the right-to-know law and reinstating potential liability for disclosure of information exempt from disclosure.