In liability and compensation, further providing for schedule of compensation and for physical examination or expert interview.
Summary
HB2204 amends Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act to change who may perform certain medical evaluations used in workers’ compensation cases. Specifically, after an employee has received 104 weeks of total disability compensation, the insurer may request a medical examination to determine impairment, and the bill removes the current requirement that the examining physician be actively engaged in clinical practice for at least 20 hours per week. The same change is made for examinations under section 314(b) when the exam relates to the impairment evaluation process.
The bill keeps the existing requirements that the examiner be licensed in Pennsylvania and certified by an American Board of Medical Specialties-approved board or osteopathic equivalent, and that impairment determinations continue to use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 6th edition. It also directs the Department of Labor and Industry to issue regulations to implement the changes, and the act would take effect 60 days after enactment.
Impact
HB2204 would narrow the statutory qualifications for physicians conducting workers’ compensation impairment and physical examinations by deleting the “active in clinical practice for at least twenty hours per week” requirement. This could expand the pool of eligible examiners, potentially affecting how insurers, employers, injured workers, and workers’ compensation judges obtain and rely on medical evaluations in disability and impairment disputes. The bill does not change the underlying compensation schedule or the use of the AMA impairment guides, but it would alter the procedural rules governing medical examinations under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the available materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears technical and administrative rather than ideologically charged, suggesting it is aimed at adjusting provider eligibility rules within the workers’ compensation system. The absence of recorded debate or votes means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from the supplied record.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the removal of the requirement that examiners be in active clinical practice for at least 20 hours per week. Supporters may view this as a practical expansion of the pool of qualified physicians and a way to improve access to evaluators, while opponents may argue it could allow less clinically current physicians to perform consequential impairment exams. Another possible issue is whether broadening examiner eligibility could affect the perceived fairness or reliability of workers’ compensation medical determinations.
In liability and compensation, further providing for schedule of compensation; and, in Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund, further providing for claims.