Curtis King — Was praised for doing a great job representing.
Curtis King — Elsie addressed Ranking Member King.
Curtis King — Addressed as Ranking Member.
Melissa Johnson — Melissa Johnson, appearing in person and speaking on behalf of the Washington Chapter of the American Physical Therapy Association, testified in strong support of SB 6152. She argued that allowing physical therapists to serve as attending providers would reduce delays in the workers' compensation referral process, enable earlier initiation of care, and help injured workers return to work more quickly. She also addressed anticipated scope-of-practice concerns, saying PTs should not be treated differently from other attending providers and emphasizing that physical therapists are musculoskeletal experts whose role would benefit both workers and employers.
Suzanne Michaud — Suzanne Michaud is listed as a witness, then introduces herself as a doctor of physical therapy and begins testimony in support of SB 6152. Later, the discussion refers back to her earlier point that physical therapists are educated and trained in differential diagnosis.
John Copley — Listed as a remote witness for the first panel.
SB6152 — Witness expresses strong support for the bill.
SB6152 — Testimony continues in support of the bill.
SB6152 — Witness argues the bill removes barriers and improves access to care.
SB6152 — Supported as a bill that would improve outcomes for injured workers and reduce costs by allowing physical therapists to serve as attending providers.
SB6152 — Discussed as a way to reduce front-end and back-end delays in workers' compensation care.
SB6152 — Presented as the mechanism for allowing early PT access and reducing case duration.
SB6152 — Supported as a bill to accelerate care delivery and return to work.
SB6152 — Requested passage of the bill to reduce delays and improve safe return to work.
SB6152 — Opposed by the Washington Retail Association.
SB6152 — Opposed by the Washington State Medical Association.
SB6152 — Opposed by NFIB for reasons similar to prior panelists.
Josh Cobley — Introduced as a remote witness for the next testimony panel.
Josh Kobli — Josh Kobli, an occupational therapist and founder of Convibio Health, testified in support of the bill by describing how his clinic helps injured workers recover and return to work more quickly. He explained that therapists like him perform functional testing and work-simulation evaluations, including examples such as rigging a utility pole in the clinic to assess whether injured linemen can safely climb again. He noted that his evaluation must then be submitted to an L&I attending provider for sign-off, which creates delays, and he urged passage of the bill to improve the process.
Rose Gunderson — Rose Gunderson testified in opposition on behalf of the Washington Retail Association. She said the association supports access to care but is concerned about maintaining quality of care throughout the claims process. She argued the bill should include guardrails rather than giving PTs and OTs unrestricted attending-provider authority, noting that other states’ systems differ because private insurers can perform those duties. She concluded that a tailored approach could improve access while still setting limits on what PTs and OTs can do.
Patrick Conner — Listed as part of the next opposition panel.
Patrick Conner — Testified in opposition on behalf of NFIB and Washington's small business owners, citing concerns about PT/OT authority.
Alex Wenger — Listed as part of the next opposition panel.
Alex Wehinger — Alex Wehinger, speaking for the Washington State Medical Association, testified in respectful opposition to the bill. He argued that allowing patients to see PTs or OTs first could be problematic because seemingly simple complaints like back pain may stem from conditions outside their diagnostic scope, and any initial PT/OT visit could still lead to delays if a referral to primary care is later needed. He also noted the association had raised similar concerns when chiropractors were granted comparable authority and indicated they would monitor whether those concerns materialized.
Tammy — The next panel is introduced, including Tammy.
David Kackenindin — David Kackenindin introduces himself as a doctor of occupational therapy and private practice owner, then testifies as the legislative chair of the Washington Occupational Therapy Association in strong support of the bill, framing his remarks as professional testimony on occupational therapy.
Tammy Phelham — Named as part of the next panel.
Tammy Fellon — Tammy Fellon, speaking on behalf of the Department of Labor and Industries, testifies about L&I's concerns with the bill. She explains that the agency needs a later effective date and that providers should be required to join the medical provider network. She also notes the administrative burden of adding a new provider type, referencing the earlier addition of psychologists as attending providers as an example of a similar change.
SB5337 — Public hearing on Senate Bill 5337 was opened and the bill report was presented. The hearing focused on the proposed substitute, which adds an intent section and updates a date. Testimony explained current non-compete law and described the bill’s main effects: expanding the definition of non-compete covenants to cover certain repayment/forfeiture provisions and performer agreements, voiding all non-compete covenants regardless of when entered, requiring employers to notify affected workers by October 1, 2026, and eliminating the earnings-threshold limitation because all non-competes would be void. The sponsor clarified that the bill targets non-competes only and does not eliminate nondisclosure or non-solicitation protections, then urged adoption of the bill. The sequence concluded with testimony in support of the measure.
Derek Stanford — Senator Stanford is identified as the sponsor of Senate Bill 5337, and then explains the bill’s purpose: workers who leave a job should not be constrained by former employers, because non-compete agreements limit worker mobility and are anti-competitive.
Mark Schoesler — Asked whether the existing $126,000 earnings threshold would go away under the bill.
Mark Schoesler — Mark Schoesler thanks Senator King for sponsoring the bill and expresses appreciation for Senator King’s supportive comments, framing the bill as a permissive approach that he supports.
Mark Schoesler — Senator Schoesler raises a question about the bill, asking whether card-check can be conducted by employees who are outside Washington, including workers who may be out of state or out of the country part-time. The prime sponsor responds by seeking clarification of the question and the discussion continues as they work through the details.
Alex Wehanger — Alex Wehanger was listed on the first in-person pro panel and then testified in support of Senate Bill 5337 on behalf of the Washington State Medical Association, representing its 13,000 physicians and physician assistants across Washington.
Carissa Larson — Carissa Larson, representing the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, testified in support of SB 5437. She introduced herself as part of the pro panel, explained that the bill would help free workers from non-compete restrictions, and then concluded her remarks by thanking the committee for its time.
Carissa Larson — Carissa Larson is identified as a witness and then testifies on Senate Bill 6039 on behalf of the State Labor Council and Government Affairs team, stating her opposition to parts of the bill.
SB5437 — SB 5437 was discussed in a continuous hearing segment focused on restricting or eliminating non-compete agreements. Supporters argued the bill would expand worker freedom by voiding non-competes and protecting more workers, while opponents raised concerns about its impact on clinician recruitment, investment in employees, current employees’ ability to work for competitors, and the bill’s non-solicitation language. Testimony also requested narrowing the bill to post-employment situations, preserving a senior executive exemption, and removing the non-solicitation change, while other speakers urged eliminating non-competes altogether and expressed support for the bill.
Mark Mantai — Mark Mantai was introduced as the next witness and then testified on behalf of Vancouver Clinic in opposition to SB 5437, raising concerns about the bill. He concluded by asking the committee to consider the feedback and expressing willingness to work with them on future language.
James Crandall — James Crandall was introduced as a witness on the next panel and then provided testimony on behalf of the Association of Washington Business, expressing concerns about SB 5437.
James Crandall — James Crandall was introduced as part of the opposition panel and then testified on behalf of the Association of Washington Business in opposition to SB 6117, expressing concerns with the bill.
Brad Tower — Brad Tower is introduced as a witness on the next panel and then testifies on behalf of the Community Bankers of Washington, expressing concerns about the bill, particularly the proposed change to the definition of non-solicitation.
Jesse Wing — Jesse Wing is introduced as a remote witness on the final panel and then begins testimony on behalf of the Washington Employment Lawyers Association, explaining that he represents employees in employment matters, including non-compete issues, in support of stronger non-compete protections.
Sung Shen — Named as a remote witness on the final panel.
Typha Harris — Named as a remote witness on the final panel.
Dr. Donovan — Cited by Jesse Wing as an example of a worker harmed by non-compete restrictions after a decade of work.
Seng Shin — Seng Shin testified in support of SB 5437, explaining that he was hired in 2021 as a marketing executive for a Midwest-based company and worked remotely. He later left for another job, stating that he did not take clients or intellectual property and that his former employer nevertheless sued him in the Midwest for allegedly violating a non-compete agreement. He described the lawsuit as preventing him from working for months, causing severe financial strain for his family, and resulting in nearly $1 million in attorney fees.
Taifa Harris — Taifa Harris thanked the committee and praised efforts to reform non-competition agreements, then urged lawmakers to keep pushing to abolish the practice statewide. She described being sued by a former employer over a non-compete despite earning the role on merit, and explained that non-compete agreements restrict professionals, consume time and money, and punish people trying to advance their careers. She concluded by urging further legislative action to abolish non-competition agreements.
SB6058 — Senate Bill 6058 is introduced and explained as a bill giving L&I discretion in wage enforcement actions, including whether to investigate wage complaints and requiring action within 60 days after acceptance. The discussion also covers tolling of the statute of limitations for civil actions and related notice requirements, and then concludes with the close of public testimony on the bill.
SB5944 — The committee takes up Senate Bill 5944, which concerns collective bargaining rights for language access providers. The bill report explains that missed or canceled appointment payments would be treated as part of economic compensation subject to bargaining, and that collective bargaining agreements would prevail over conflicting executive orders, rules, or policies. A question is raised about the bill’s scope and who is affected when an interpreter does not show up. The sponsor then explains that the bill clarifies compensation can include payments for missed or canceled appointments, allows bargaining over that issue across agencies, and does not change service delivery or force agencies to agree to compensation terms. The sponsor asks for support, followed by testimony in support from Katie Durkin, and the chair then closes public testimony and the hearing on SB 5944.