RELATING TO LABOR AND LABOR RELATIONS -- WORKERS' COMPENSATION--, GENERAL PROVISIONS
S3297 makes a broad set of changes to Rhode Island’s workers’ compensation laws and related injured-on-duty provisions. In the workers’ compensation chapter, it revises definitions such as “employee,” “earnings capacity,” “maximum medical improvement,” and “suitable alternative employment,” and it clarifies when the workers’ compensation court may determine issues like disability status, causation, suitable alternative employment, and fee awards. The bill also updates rules for rehabilitation, medical treatment, and appeals from memoranda of agreement, and it expressly provides that certain state employees and Rhode Island Airport Corporation employees, excluding sworn state police, will use workers’ compensation court procedures for specified disputes filed on or after July 1, 2025.
The bill also amends the injured-on-duty statute for police, firefighters, crash rescue personnel, and fire marshals. It expands and clarifies coverage for line-of-duty injuries, including a presumption for certain PTSD claims, adds procedures for off-duty emergency assistance claims, and requires sworn declarations for those claims. It further requires certain injured-on-duty recipients to apply for accidental disability retirement benefits within specified timeframes, with termination of injured-on-duty payments if they do not apply or after final retirement-board action. The act takes effect upon passage.
S3297 would affect multiple chapters of Rhode Island law, primarily Title 28 workers’ compensation provisions and Title 45 injured-on-duty benefits for public safety personnel. It would expand the workers’ compensation court’s role in resolving disputes involving state employees and Rhode Island Airport Corporation employees, adjust benefit administration and rehabilitation procedures, and modify hospital reimbursement and treatment rules, including a provision allowing Medicare-based cost calculations for hospital services. It also changes the treatment of hearing aids by removing the prior exclusion and requiring reimbursement for hearing aids or other amplification devices in the injured-worker medical benefits section, as reflected in the bill explanation.
The bill appears generally pro-worker and pro-claimant in its overall structure, because it expands court access, clarifies benefit eligibility, and adds or preserves medical and disability-related protections for injured workers and public safety employees. At the same time, it also introduces tighter procedural requirements and deadlines, especially for injured-on-duty claimants who must pursue retirement disability benefits within set time limits. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so the available record does not show formal opposition or support beyond the bill’s text and explanation.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s expansion of workers’ compensation court jurisdiction over state employee claims, the new or clarified deadlines for applying for accidental disability retirement, and the evidentiary requirements for off-duty emergency assistance claims. Public employers, insurers, and retirement administrators may view the added procedures and presumptions as increasing administrative burden or liability, while labor and public safety advocates may support the broader access to benefits and clearer protections. Another likely issue is the PTSD presumption for police and firefighters, which is limited by exclusions for discipline or adverse employment actions and may still raise disputes over causation and proof.