Relating to temporary total disability benefits.
SB 991 amends Oregon workers’ compensation law, specifically ORS 656.268, to change when a worker may refuse an offer of modified employment without losing temporary total disability benefits. The bill removes two existing refusal grounds from the statute, narrowing the circumstances under which a worker can decline modified work and still keep benefits. In practical terms, it makes more modified jobs eligible to be offered as benefit-ending return-to-work opportunities.
Under current law, a worker can refuse modified employment without losing temporary total disability benefits if the offer is not with the employer at injury or is not at a work site of the employer at injury. SB 991 deletes those two protections from the list, while leaving other refusal grounds in place, such as commute limitations, distance from the injury site, shift-change conflicts, and collective bargaining agreement conflicts. The bill also retains the special rule for home care workers and personal support workers.
The bill’s main legal effect is to expand the set of modified employment offers that can terminate temporary total disability benefits once a treating provider has released the worker to modified work and the offer is made in writing. That change would likely affect injured workers, insurers, self-insured employers, and employers offering light-duty or modified positions, by making it easier to route workers back into modified employment and reduce ongoing temporary disability payments. It does not rewrite the broader claim-closure or reconsideration framework, but it operates within that system by changing one key trigger for benefit continuation.
No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or roll-call sentiment to assess. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to favor employers and insurers by reducing the circumstances in which workers may decline modified work while keeping temporary total disability benefits. The bill also appears to preserve worker protections in other areas, suggesting a targeted rather than wholesale change to workers’ compensation rules.
The main point of contention is likely to be whether removing those two refusal grounds unfairly pressures injured workers to accept modified jobs that are not at the original injury site or not with the original employer. Supporters would likely argue the change improves return-to-work opportunities and reduces unnecessary benefit costs, while opponents would likely argue it weakens worker choice and may force acceptance of less suitable modified employment. Because no discussion record is available, these positions are inferred from the statutory changes rather than from stated testimony.
SB 991 would amend ORS 656.268, the workers’ compensation claim-closure statute, by deleting two reasons a worker may refuse modified employment without losing temporary total disability benefits. The change would affect how insurers and self-insured employers can end temporary disability payments when a worker is medically released to modified work, and it would likely increase the number of modified job offers that qualify as benefit-ending offers. The bill leaves the rest of the claim-closure, reconsideration, and medical arbiter procedures intact.
No committee discussion or voting record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment. From the text, the bill appears to be employer- and insurer-friendly because it narrows worker refusal rights and expands the circumstances under which modified employment can terminate temporary total disability benefits. At the same time, it preserves several existing worker protections, indicating a focused policy change rather than a broad rollback of workers’ compensation rights.
The likely contention is over whether the bill unduly limits injured workers’ ability to refuse modified employment. Opponents would likely focus on the removal of protections for jobs not with the employer at injury or not at the work site of the employer at injury, arguing that workers should not lose benefits for declining those offers. Supporters would likely argue that the bill closes loopholes, encourages return to work, and reduces costs by allowing more modified positions to count as suitable offers. No named stakeholders or recorded testimony were provided, so these positions are inferred from the statutory amendments.