A BILL to amend and reenact § 65.2-712 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Chapter 5 of Title 65.2 a section numbered 65.2-532, relating to workers' compensation; disability of law-enforcement officer; spousal wage replacement; report.
HB406 creates a new workers’ compensation benefit for spouses of injured law-enforcement officers who need to reduce work or take unpaid leave to provide medically necessary in-home care. If a treating health care provider recommends full-time in-home spousal care, the officer’s employer must pay the spouse a wage-replacement benefit equal to the least of two-thirds of the spouse’s average weekly wage, 80% of the Commonwealth’s average weekly wage, or the officer’s weekly compensation rate. The benefit is limited to 12 weeks or until a full-time live-in caregiver is provided, whichever comes first, and it is reduced by any wages or paid leave the spouse receives.
The bill adds § 65.2-532 to the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act and amends § 65.2-712 to include spouses receiving this new benefit in the existing reporting and recovery rules for changes in earnings and other disqualifying events. It also directs the Workers’ Compensation Commission to create an application review process by January 1, 2027, and requires an annual report to the Governor and General Assembly on applications, approvals, average payments, and fiscal impact. The measure would affect law-enforcement employers, workers’ compensation insurers, the Commission, and spouses who provide unpaid in-home care to injured officers.
The available context suggests the bill is framed as a supportive benefit for families of injured law-enforcement officers, with no recorded floor debate or vote history in the provided materials. The substitute version indicates the bill was refined in committee, which typically suggests an effort to address administrative or fiscal concerns while preserving the core policy goal. Overall, the bill appears to have been presented in a positive, assistance-oriented light.
The main points of potential contention are fiscal cost, administrative implementation, and eligibility limits. Because the benefit is paid by the employer or insurer and requires a Commission review process and annual reporting, stakeholders may question the fiscal impact and claims administration burden. The bill also contains several limiting conditions—such as a provider recommendation, proof of reduced work hours or unpaid leave, a 12-week cap, and exclusion where in-home care is already ordered by a provider—which may reflect concern about preventing overlap with other care arrangements and controlling costs.