Workers' compensation; duty to furnish medical attention; timeframe for decision.
HB 1749 amends Virginia’s workers’ compensation law governing an employer’s duty to furnish medical attention to an injured employee. The bill keeps the existing framework requiring the employer to provide a panel physician and necessary medical care, prosthetics, home modifications, vehicle modifications, vocational rehabilitation, and related services, but adds a new deadline for employer action on medical-care requests. Under the bill, the employer must issue a decision on a request for medical attention within 45 calendar days, unless one of several specified exceptions applies, such as documented complications obtaining medical information, the need for extended evaluation, specialist consultation, conflicting medical opinions, or other exceptional circumstances recognized by the Commission.
If the employer misses the 45-day deadline without a valid reason, the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission may order the provision of medical attention. The bill also requires written notice to the employee and the Commission when an extension is taken, including the reason and expected decision date. The measure preserves existing rules on employee refusal of treatment, emergency care, chiropractic treatment, and vocational rehabilitation, and it continues to allow chiropractors on the panel when the injury is within chiropractic scope of practice.
The bill would amend Code of Virginia § 65.2-603, adding a procedural timeline and enforcement mechanism to the workers’ compensation medical-treatment process. It would not broadly change benefit eligibility, but it would impose a new administrative obligation on employers and insurers to act within 45 days on medical-care requests and to document any extension. The Commission would gain explicit authority to intervene when the deadline is exceeded without a valid statutory reason, potentially increasing oversight and accelerating access to treatment for injured workers.
The available voting history suggests mixed but somewhat skeptical committee sentiment. In subcommittee, the bill was recommended to be laid on the table by a 5-3 vote, indicating that a majority of members were not ready to advance it in its introduced form. No transcript is available, so the precise arguments are not recorded, but the vote pattern suggests some support for faster medical decisions for injured workers alongside concerns about administrative burden, flexibility for medical review, or the need for more time to evaluate the proposal.
The main point of contention appears to be the new 45-day decision deadline and whether it is too rigid for workers’ compensation claims that may require complex medical review. Supporters would likely view the deadline as a way to prevent delays in treatment and improve accountability, while opponents may be concerned that employers, insurers, and the Commission need broader discretion to handle complicated cases, specialist consultations, or incomplete medical records. The extension exceptions in the bill appear designed to address those concerns, but the subcommittee vote indicates that some members still found the proposal premature or insufficiently balanced.