Missouri committee hears competing views on HB 2375 workers'comp reforms

Representative Brad Chris introduced House Bill 2375 as a cleanup to Missouri's workers'compensation statutes, saying the measure clarifies the prevailing factor test, prevents double recovery, allows early dismissal of invalid claims and creates an appeals route for temporary awards.

"This is just a cleanup of that statute," Representative Brad Chris said, adding a clarified prevailing'factor definition for first responders to ensure gradual job-related deterioration remains compensable.

Supporters from the insurance and business community, including Steven Rehagen, general counsel for the Missouri Automobile Dealer Association, told the committee the bill fixes flaws that let some claims drag on and can produce duplicative payments. "This bill would hopefully save the state money, would cut down on the number of frivolous cases and would also ensure that the workers who were due treatment got the treatment they still need," Rehagen said.

Proponents described a new motion'to'dismiss mechanism intended to allow early removal of patently invalid claims and a newly created appeal process for temporary awards, which sponsors said lacks a current appeal path.

Opponents, led by Springfield work'comp attorney Randy Aborhevsky, said the bill is a significant change that risks denying care. "This bill is not just a slight modification of existing law. It's a radical departure," Aborhevsky told the committee, arguing that adding "need for treatment" as a separate prevailing'factor could mean preexisting conditions are used to deny otherwise compensable care.

Aborhevsky and other critics also said third'party payments (Medicare, Medicaid, ERISA plans, private disability) are already handled in ways that prevent double recovery and warned that credits to employers could leave injured workers repaying those third'party payors. He said earlier dismissal motions could be used to delay benefits rather than expedite resolution in some cases.

Committee members pressed witnesses on how the bill would treat supplemental benefits such as private disability insurance and how often contested claims reach administrative law judges. Rehagen said the bill is intended to prevent a claimant from receiving more than 100% of treatment costs while still ensuring necessary care, and that some contested cases can take months or years to reach an ALJ. Opponents disputed the characterization that double recovery is common.

The committee concluded the hearing on HB 2375 without a vote and allowed stakeholders to continue refining language for return consideration.

The committee has not scheduled a vote; the bill will return to committee work as sponsors and stakeholders negotiate specific language.