1 INVENTORY OF WORKERS COMPENSATION LAWS BETA VERSION AS OF JANUARY 1, 2007 Originally created by the U.S. Department of Labor, this version is produced through a joint effort by the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions (IAIABC) and the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI). These tables are provided as a service to the members of the IAIABC and the WCRI. This new partnership will provide updated tables to members annually by The current 2007 version is being shared in order to test the quality of the information collected and develop methods to improve the quality and timeliness of the content.
2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For over twenty years, tables similar to these were published each year by the U.S. Department of Labor s Office of Workers Compensation Programs (OWCP). The IAIABC and the WCRI would like to express their appreciation to OWCP for their pioneering effort to compile regulatory information annually in the original publication entitled State Workers Compensation Laws. The project manager would like to thank the many workers compensation experts from over 58 jurisdictions who contributed to this project. Without them, this publication would not have been possible. Additionally, the suggestions made by the initial survey reviewers, Duncan Ballantyne, Terry Bogyo, Greg Krohm, Mike Manley, Carol Telles, and Rick Victor, dramatically improved the final product. Appreciation is also expressed to Jennifer Wolf of the IAIABC who assisted in obtaining contact information for many of the jurisdictions. Lastly, I am deeply appreciative of the support, assistance, and friendship of Stephanie Deeley who attended to all the details as project assistant, and to Greg Krohm and Rick Victor who provided invaluable advice and consultation on the final product. Ann Clayton Cambridge, Massachusetts March
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 4 Caution to Users... 5 Data Collection and Quality Assurance Process... 7 List of Tables...11 Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations
4 INTRODUCTION This is a beta version of a reference book that describes the features of each participating workers compensation system. The term beta version is borrowed from the software industry to indicate that this version is a work in progress and is being released to the user community for the express purpose of getting feedback to improve quality and functionality. In particular, we know that not all information presented for every state is clear or correct. We invite the user community to identify items where they believe correction or clarification is needed and to send that feedback to WCRI at We will forward the feedback to the states and invite them to correct or clarify their materials in this document. After the beta-testing period has concluded, we will republish this reference book with updated information and remove the beta version qualifier. The following tables are intended to represent Workers Compensation regulations and benefit levels in effect as of January 1, 2007 (unless a footnote indicates otherwise) in all states of the United States, and all U.S. territories and Canadian provinces that chose to participate in this project. It is the intent of the IAIABC and the WCRI to provide updated tables on an annual basis. This survey builds on many years of valuable work by the U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL). U.S DOL pioneered the use of a standard set of tables to promote uniformity in responses across states and consistency in reports from year to year. We hope to further the pursuit of uniformity and consistency through a web-based survey. The purpose of the survey was to provide an inventory of key legal and administrative features of workers' compensation systems. For budgetary reasons, the DOL suspended the survey after its last edition for regulations in effect as of January 1, Based on popular demand for the continuation of this survey, the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions (IAIABC) and the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) agreed to work as partners in the continuation of this important resource. The WCRI funded the principal effort of survey 4
5 administration and formatting responses into useful tables. The IAIABC assisted in reviewing the survey instrument and responses, and in obtaining cooperation from jurisdictions. The 2007 survey should be viewed as a beta or transitional version. In this year s survey we deliberately made as few changes as possible to the scope of the DOL information provided. We chose instead to focus attention on developing good lines of communication with agencies providing the data. A significant change in the 2007 survey is the addition of Canadian jurisdictions. In the future, we hope to add more national systems to the survey, making this a unique source of information on internationally comparative data. CAUTION TO USERS We recognize that both the jurisdictions responding to this survey and users of the results want the characterizations of laws to be accurate and fairly stated. Yet, it is inherently difficult to summarize complex laws with complete accuracy for all applications of that law. We have tried to strike a balance between the utility of summary data and complexity of application of the law. Several caveats are important for users about weaknesses in the survey data. Many of our disclaimers are well known to seasoned workers' compensation researchers, but are worth emphasizing here for those less familiar with workers' compensation, the survey, and the current survey methodology. In Canada and the United States, workers' compensation is entirely under the control of sub-national legislative bodies and administrative agencies. For this reason, jurisdictions tend to have highly individualistic approaches to administering workers' compensation and often use the same legal constructs but apply different terms to describe them. For example, permanent partial disability is a category of benefit that seeks to provide a benefit to an injured worker for future wage losses resulting from an occupational occurrence. States use a variety of structures to attempt to accomplish this but often do not use the term permanent partial disability to describe them. Workers' compensation is inherently complex both in terms of coverage and benefits. It is easy to misunderstand subtle differences between jurisdictional laws and 5
6 regulations. The differences in law are magnified by agency interpretive bulletins and traditional practices. Additionally, case law is continually redefining interpretations and application. The laws are riddled with exceptions to the general rules. For example, the law may nominally call for universal coverage of all businesses with three or more employees, yet there could be a dozen exemptions from the universal coverage. The exemptions for on-farm employment, domestic workers, and sole proprietors are notorious for their inconsistency from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The wording of the survey was also open to misinterpretation and inconsistency of responses. Even within the same agency, different people might respond to the survey with different answers. Given all the complexities cited above, some inconsistency is inevitable. Ongoing improvements in the survey design and more consistent relationships and communication with respondents should improve this. twithstanding these limitations, the 2007 survey preserves a valuable tool for researching and understanding workers' compensation system differences. It is best used to understand macro-level differences and general tendencies across jurisdictions. Examples of questions well suited for this survey data are: How many states/provinces allow individual or group self-insurance? How do the maximum and minimum payments for temporary total and permanent total disability benefits vary? How many states cover mental stress claims, hearing loss, and cumulative trauma? What proportions of jurisdictions restrict the worker s choice of medical provider? Employer coverage responsibilities, coverage and benefit determinations, and other compliance issues must be based on a careful review of the laws in each jurisdiction. To illustrate, assume two jurisdictions each had three-day waiting periods and paid 66 and 2/3 percent of lost wages for temporary total disability benefits. The actual indemnity benefit payable may be complicated by exceptions and qualifications on when the first day of disability begins; how intermittent periods of disability are treated; 6
7 compensation that is included in determining the wage ; period(s) over which the average wage is calculated; caps on wages earned by the injured worker; reductions due to safety violations or additions due to the worker s age or the fact they may be an apprentice; allowable attorney fees; and government and/or pension offsets. This same need to consider the facts surrounding particular applications of the law is true of most areas of workers, compensation. This is why we have encouraged jurisdictions to footnote their responses. In many cases the footnotes provide valuable insights and should be closely examined by the serious user of these tables. In future surveys, we will be refining and expanding the survey questions. A priority issue will be to ensure that the questions are well understood and structured to produce comparable answers across jurisdictions. We will also be altering the scope of the survey, deemphasizing some areas that were once important issues but are no longer and we will add new questions to shed light on more topical issues. We welcome your comments and suggestions. DATA COLLECTION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESS The tables were populated from completed surveys sent to all rth American workers compensation jurisdictions in July Two U.S. states (Nevada and rth Carolina) declined to participate in the 2007 survey because they felt that they could not provide a fair and accurate response this year. For these two states, the project manager reviewed the state s web site, statutes, and appropriate rules to gather the information necessary to populate the tables with provisional data. Other rth American jurisdictions not returning the survey were eliminated from the tables. In 2008 we expect all U.S. states and more Canadian provinces to participate in full. The information gathered from the states and Canadian jurisdictions participating was input into the resulting tables. Every attempt was made to enter the actual information given by the jurisdiction into the tables accurately. However, in a number of 7
8 cases, the information given was a statutory cite. In those instances, the information was summarized in the table or notation rather than citing the entire statute. This could result in an interpretation other than what was intended by a thorough reading of the statutory language. These resulting tables were returned to each jurisdiction for review and edits as they felt appropriate. Seventy-two percent (72%) of the jurisdictions replied that the information in the tables was correct or would be correct after specific edits. Seven nonresponding jurisdictions were telephoned and asked questions on specific table content that the project manager felt was incorrect. This information was corrected or left as submitted by the jurisdiction based on the result of the telephone discussion. The survey information from the remaining non-responding jurisdictions remains in the tables as they submitted it. The few exceptions where data was edited by the project manager after checking with another state authority or the statute are footnoted on the respective tables where this occurred. Data for the states of Nevada and rth Carolina were compiled from a review of the workers compensation statute, rules, and other publicly available information. Both state agencies were then asked to review and edit the information contained in the tables, but did not have the resources to do this for the current survey. In order to give users of the information full disclosure of the resulting tables, the following chart provides a ranking on which jurisdictions completed which parts of the quality assurance process: s following the entire process were given a 1. s that sent in edits, but did not officially sign off that all the information in the tables was correct were given a 2. s that responded to questions by phone or , but did not sign off that all the information in all the tables was correct were given a 3. s that completed the survey but did not sign off that all the information in the tables was correct were given a 4. s that did not complete the survey at all were given a 5. 8
9 WC Laws 2007 Quality Assurance Process Chart by Quality Process Rating Completed Survey Reviewed and Signed Off on All Tables Alabama 1 x x Alaska 3 x Arizona 1 x x Arkansas 1 x x British Columbia 1 x x California 1 x x Colorado 1 x x Connecticut 1 x x Delaware 4 x District of Columbia 4 x Florida 4 x Georgia 1 x x Hawaii 1 x x Idaho 1 x x Illinois 1 x x Indiana 1 x x Iowa 1 x x Kansas 1 x x Kentucky 1 x x Louisiana 3 x Maine 4 x Maryland 1 x x Massachusetts 1 x x Michigan 1 x x Minnesota 1 x x Mississippi 1 x x Missouri 1 x x Montana 1 x x Nebraska 1 x x Nevada 5 New Brunswick 2 x New Hampshire 1 x x New Jersey 4 x New Mexico 1 x x New York 1 x x rth Carolina 5 rth Dakota 1 x x Ohio 1 x x Oklahoma 4 x Ontario 1 x x Oregon 1 x x Pennsylvania 1 x x Prince Edward Island 4 x 9
10 WC Laws 2007 (continued) Quality Assurance Process Chart by Quality Process Rating Completed Survey Reviewed and Signed Off on All Tables Rhode Island 1 x x Saskatchewan 1 x x South Carolina 1 x x South Dakota 1 x x Tennessee 1 x x Texas 1 x x US Federal Programs - FECA 4 x US Federal Programs - 4 x Longshore Utah 4 x Vermont 1 x x Virginia 4 x Washington 1 x x West Virginia 1 x x Wisconsin 1 x x Wyoming 1 x x Users should be aware that empty cells within a table could mean that information was not completed for that survey question by the jurisdiction or it could mean that where the survey gave a listing of choices, the ones that were not checked did not apply to that jurisdiction. Without the actual completed surveys, users cannot be sure which applies. Therefore, some comparisons result in a best estimate without a thorough reading of all the statutes. Finally, we ask that each user also become part of the continuous improvement process. If you find any information within these tables that is incorrect, please send the correct information to us with the statutory cites, rule number, or case law cite that will allow us to correct the information. We would also appreciate your suggestions about extensions or modifications to the survey scope. Questions and suggestions should be sent to 10
11 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Type of Law and Insurance Requirements as of January 1, 2007 TABLE 2. Coverage Exemptions from Workers Compensation as of January 1, 2007 TABLE 3. Workers' Compensation Medical Benefits and Method of Physician Selection as of January 1, 2007 TABLE 4. Benefits for Temporary Total Disability Provided by Workers Compensation Systems as of January 1, 2007 TABLE 5. Benefits for Permanent Total Disability Provided by Workers Compensation Systems as of January 1, 2007 TABLE 6. Permanent Partial Disability Benefits Provided by Workers Compensation Systems as of January 1, 2007 TABLE 7. Maximum Benefit Payments for Selected Scheduled Permanent Partial Disabilities as of January 1, 2007 TABLE 8. Sequence of Disability Payments Made Within Workers Compensation Systems as of January 1, 2007 TABLE 9. Coverage of Mental Stress, Cumulative Trauma, Hearing Loss, and Disfigurement as of January 1,
12 TABLE 10. Details on Occupational Hearing Loss Claims in Workers Compensation s as of January 1, 2007 TABLE 11. Details on Disfigurement Claims as of January 1, 2007 TABLE 12. Fatality Benefits Paid Under Workers Compensation Systems as of January 1, 2007 TABLE 13. Initial Payments, Waiting Periods, Retroactive Payments and Timeframes for TTD as of January 1, 2007 TABLE 14. Rehabilitation Benefits Allowed Under Workers Compensation Systems as of January 1, 2007 TABLE 15. Advocate and Attorney Fee Provisions Under Workers Compensation Statutes as of January 1, 2007 TABLE 16. Workers Compensation Boards, Advisory Committees, and Other Commissions within s as of January 1,
13 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ABP = Additional benefits payable The ACT = The workers compensation act ALJ = Administrative law judge AMA = American Medical Association ANSI = American National Standards Institute ARP = Assigned risk plan = Average weekly wage BWC = Bureau of Workers Compensation CPP = Canadian Pension Plan Cmr. = Commissioner CPA = Certified public accountant CPI = Consumer price index CPPD = Canadian Pension Plan Disability DBCS = Department of Business and Consumer Services Dept. = Department DOI = Date of injury DVR = Division of Vocational Rehabilitation ER = Emergency room FECA = Federal Employees Compensation Act FERS = Federal Employees Retirement System GS = General Service HCS = Health care services IME = Independent medical evaluation IRE = Impairment rating examination IWCC = Industrial Workers Compensation Commission LLC = Limited liability corporation Max. = Maximum 13
14 MCO = Managed care organization MMI = Maximum medical improvement Min. = Minimum MPN = Medical provider network NBIAE = New Brunswick industrial aggregate earnings NCCI = National Council on Compensation Insurance OJT = On the job training OPM = Office of Personnel Management (administers the Federal Retirement Programs) OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health Administration OT = Occupational Therapy OWCP = Office of Workers Compensation Programs PD = Permanent disability PIA = Principal insurance amount (the basic benefit provided by Social Security) PPD = Permanent partial disability PPI = Permanent partial impairment PPO = Preferred provider organization PT = Physical therapy PTD = Permanent total disability QME = Qualified medical examiner QPP = Quebec pension plan RTW = Return to work SAMW = Statewide average manufacturing wage S = Statewide average weekly wage SWMW = Statewide monthly wage SS = Social Security SSDI = Social security disability insurance TD = Temporary disability TPD = Temporary partial disability TTD = Temporary total disability VA = Veterans Administration Vol. Mkt. = Voluntary market 14
16 TABLE 1. TYPE OF LAW AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AS OF JANUARY 1, 2007 This chart displays information on whether a law is compulsory or elective by statute; if waivers are permitted; the market choices for purchasing coverage within each jurisdiction participating in the survey, and how the market of last resort is handled. Type of Law: Compulsory or Elective / Farms State Fund * Alabama Compulsory x x Administered by NCCI Alaska Compulsory x x Administered by NCCI Arizona Compulsory x x x x Administered by NCCI Arkansas Compulsory x x x Administered by NCCI British Columbia Compulsory (1) (2) x x Exclusive Fund - no vol. mkt. California Compulsory x x x x n-exclusive state fund Colorado Compulsory (3) x x x n-exclusive state fund Connecticut Compulsory (4) x x x Administered by NCCI Delaware Compulsory (5) x x Administered by independent rating bureau District of Columbia Compulsory x Administered by NCCI Florida Compulsory x (6) (6) x Joint Underwriting Authority Georgia Compulsory x x Administered by NCCI Hawaii Compulsory Excludes 50% owners x x ARP- administered by state fund mutual Idaho Compulsory (7) (8) x x Claims administer designated by NCCI Illinois Compulsory (9) x x x Administered by NCCI Indiana Compulsory x Administered by independent rating bureau Iowa Compulsory Waivers Permitted: Corporate Officers Sole Proprietors May elect to be covered Children on Family May elect to cover Corporate Officers t Covered Unless Coverage Elected Employer To Insure Through: Exclusive State Fund n- Exclusive Individual Employer Self-Insurance Allowed: Groups of Employers Political Subdivisions Market of Last Resort: x Administered by NCCI x Kansas Compulsory x (10) x Administered by NCCI Kentucky Compulsory (11) (12) x x n-exclusive state fund Louisiana Compulsory x x x x Louisiana WC Mutual Maine Compulsory x (13) x x x Maine Employer's Mutual Maryland Compulsory x (14) x x n-exclusive state fund Massachusetts Compulsory (15) x Administered by independent rating bureau x x Michigan Compulsory x x x Administered by independent rating bureau Minnesota Compulsory (16) x x (17) x x Administered by independent rating bureau Mississippi Compulsory x (18) x Administered by NCCI Missouri Compulsory x x Contracted to a licensed carrier Montana Compulsory x x n-exclusive state fund Nebraska Compulsory (19) x Contracted to a licensed carrier Nevada Compulsory May elect to be covered x Administered by NCCI New Brunswick Compulsory x Exclusive Fund - no vol. mkt. New Hampshire Compulsory x Administered by NCCI New Jersey Elective (20) (21) For hospitals x Administered by independent rating bureau only New Mexico Compulsory x x x Administered by NCCI New York Compulsory x x n-exclusive state fund Private Carriers 16
17 TABLE 1. TYPE OF LAW AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AS OF JANUARY 1, 2007 This chart displays information on whether a law is compulsory or elective by statute; if waivers are permitted; the market choices for purchasing coverage within each jurisdiction participating in the survey, and how the market of last resort is handled. Type of Law: Compulsory or Elective / Waivers Permitted: Corporate Officers Sole Proprietors Children on Family Farms Corporate Officers t Covered Unless Coverage Elected Employer To Insure Through: Exclusive State Fund Private Carriers n- Exclusive State Fund * Individual Employer Self-Insurance Allowed: Groups of Employers Political Subdivisions Market of Last Resort: rth Carolina Compulsory for partners of a limited x liability corporation x Administered by independent rating bureau rth Dakota Compulsory (22) x x Exclusive Fund - no vol. mkt. Ohio Compulsory (23) x x Exclusive Fund - no vol. mkt Oklahoma Compulsory (24) x x n-exclusive state fund Ontario Compulsory x x Exclusive Fund - no vol. mkt. Oregon Compulsory x x x Administered by NCCI Pennsylvania Compulsory x x x n-exclusive state fund Prince Edward Island Compulsory x Exclusive Fund - no vol. mkt. Rhode Island Compulsory (25) x x n-exclusive state fund Saskatchewan Compulsory x Exclusive Fund - no vol. mkt. South Carolina Compulsory x x x (26) Administered by NCCI South Dakota Compulsory x (27) Administered by NCCI Tennessee Compulsory x x Administered by NCCI Texas Elective (28) x x x x n-exclusive state fund US Federal Programs - FECA Compulsory (29) n/a n/a n/a There is no market of last resort US Federal Programs - Compulsory x x n/a Longshore (30) Follows whatever method is used by the particular state in which the Longshore exposure arises Utah Compulsory (31) x x x x (32) n-exclusive state fund Vermont Compulsory x (33) x Administered by NCCI Virginia Compulsory x x Administered by NCCI Washington Compulsory x Exclusive Fund - no vol. mkt West Virginia Compulsory x x (34) Administered by independent rating bureau Wisconsin Compulsory (35) x x x x Administered by independent rating bureau Wyoming Compulsory x x x (36) Exclusive Fund - no vol. mkt tes: * Source of state fund information was 1 British Columbia- Our coverage is universally mandatory (for all entities considered to be employers) unless excluded by the Board of Directors. Section 2(1) of the Act allows for exclusion: This part applies to all employers, as employers, and all workers. There are several self insured (but no self administered) employers termed "deposit class" employers. However, current policy prohibits the formation of any new "deposit accounts". 2 British Columbia- See Assessment Manual Item: AP Colorado - Members of a limited liability company who are 10% shareholders may reject coverage. Elective as to working general partners or sole proprietors. 4 Connecticut - Family members dwelling in residence under certain conditions and service workers for a household employed less than 26 hours per week. 5 Delaware - Farm labor, sole proprietors, partners not in the construction industry, 8 corporate and 4 members of an LLC not in the construction industry, if in the construction industry that reduces to 4 and 4. 6 Florida - But no more than 3 corporate officers within the construction industry. 7 Idaho - An employer's family (first degree of consanguinity) not dwelling in his household can file an exemption from coverage. Unless the employee is exempted from coverage by law, there is no option to waive coverage. 8 Idaho - Corporate officers who own 10% of voting stock in the company and are also a company director are exempted from coverage. 9 Illinois - Sole proprietors, business partners, corporate officers, and members of limited liability companies may opt out. 10 Kansas - Corporate owners with 10% of stock can elect out. 11 Kentucky - Employees can voluntarily reject coverage if done prior to an injury (803 KAR ). 12 Kentucky - While Kentucky does not specifically exclude Corporate Officers, it does exclude business owners or qualified partners. 17
18 TABLE 1. TYPE OF LAW AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AS OF JANUARY 1, 2007 This chart displays information on whether a law is compulsory or elective by statute; if waivers are permitted; the market choices for purchasing coverage within each jurisdiction participating in the survey, and how the market of last resort is handled. Key: Type of Law: Compulsory or Elective / Waivers Permitted: Corporate Officers Sole Proprietors Children on Family Farms Corporate Officers t Covered Unless Coverage Elected Employer To Insure Through: Exclusive State Fund Private Carriers n- Exclusive State Fund * Individual Employer Self-Insurance Allowed: Groups of Employers Political Subdivisions Market of Last Resort: 13 Maine - Owners of a business are also excluded. 14 Maryland- Corporate officers are exempt if they are (1) officer of a close corporation; (2) officer of a corporation that earns at least 75% of income from farming and owns at least 20% of outstanding capitol stock; (3) officer of a professional corporation, owning at least 20%, and performs a professional service for the corporation; (4) a member of an LLC owning at least 20% of the outstanding interests in profits of the LLC. 15 Massachusetts - Coverage for sole proprietors or partners is elective. 16 Minnesota - Corporate officers with at least 25% of ownership and children on farms are excluded from coverage, not waived. 17 Minnesota - Only corporate officers with at least 25% of ownership who are excluded can then elect to be covered. 18 Mississippi- And employees who own 15% of stock. 19 Nebraska - Executive Officers who own 25% or more of the corporation's common stock are not considered employees unless they elect to be covered. 20 New Jersey - If an employer does not choose to purchase worker's compensation coverage, they must notify their employees and obtain an employer liability policy which carriers do not currently offer. 21 New Jersey - Employees can claim common law rights and "opt out". 22 rth Dakota - Farm laborers, domestic servants, members of boards of directors of business corporations, casual workers, illegal enterprises or occupations, clergy, and real estate brokers or salespersons and newspaper delivery personnel with written agreements defining them as independent contractors are all exempt from coverage. 23 Ohio - Partnership, sole proprietorship, individual incorporated as a corporation, family farm corporation and ministers. 24 Oklahoma - Stockholder employees with 10% or more of the stock must elect to be covered. 25 Rhode Island - Employees can claim common law rights and "opt out". 26 South Carolina - State Fund also insures state and government entities. 27 South Dakota - Only utilities and political subdivisions can group self-insure. 28 Texas - Employees can claim common law rights and "opt out". 29 Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA)- Administers benefits for US government employees through the Office of WC Programs. They can be considered self-insured, self administered. 30 Longshore - Longshore pays for benefits to workers injured while working in areas and in occupations that traditionally are adjacent to waterways, like those who load and unload ships or build ships. They utilize approved claim administrators, and carriers which may include state funds in multiple jurisdictions. 31 Utah - Sole proprietors, partners and farmers with less than $8,000 in annual payroll. 32 Utah - Group self insurance for public entities only. 33 Vermont - Up to 4 corporate officers or LLC members. 34 West Virginia -Is in a transition from a totally monopolistic state fund to a private insurance market but currently has only one private carrier (morphed from the state fund). Beginning 7/1/08 the market will be open to all carriers. 35 Wisconsin - The exceptions are extensive by type of employment, organizational structure, and amount of payroll. 36 Wyoming - Self insurance is an option only for non-hazardous industries. n/a: not applicable. 18
19 TABLE 2. COVERAGE EXEMPTIONS FROM WORKERS' COMPENSATION AS OF JANUARY 1, 2007 This table displays information on which jurisdictions have exceptions to coverage for small employers, agricultural employers, and domestic employees; as well as other employees who may be excluded from workers compensation laws. Specific Exclusions for Small Employers Specific Exclusions for Agricultural Employers Specific Exclusions for Domestic Employers Other Employees Excluded from Coverage Employers Are Exempt Who Independent Casual Other (See / / / Employees Volunteers Prof. Conditions for Coverage Conditions for Coverage Employ Fewer Than Contractors Athletes tes) Alabama Less than five When an employer chooses to cover them If an employer chooses to cover them x (1) Alaska (2) (3) x x x (4) Arizona If the employer chooses to cover them x x (5) Arkansas Less than four (6) x x (7) British Columbia x (8) California Colorado Less than one (meaning part-time or seasonal employees) When the employer pays more than $2,000 in wages for any calendar year If the worker(s) are employed by the employer for more than 52 hours during the preceding 90 days or earned more than $100 in wages during the preceding 90 days Coverage must be provided for persons who are employed full time, defined as 40 hours a week or five days or more a week x x (9) x x (10) Connecticut Employees working less than 26 hours per week x (11) Delaware District of Columbia Florida Less than four in non-construction businesses If the worker earns more than $750 per calendar quarter If the worker works more than 240 hours per quarter x x When the employer employs six or more workers; or 12 If the employer chooses to cover them x x x x (13) or more seasonal workers (12) Georgia Less than three When the employer chooses to cover them (14) Hawaii Idaho If the employer chooses to cover them x x (15) Illinois Annual payroll in excess of $1,000; 400 or more working days of agricultural labor per quarter excluding immediate family Workers employed more than 40 hours a week for 13 or more weeks per year Indiana When the employer chooses to do so If the employer chooses to cover them exclusions Iowa Coverage required when the total cash payroll amounts to $2500 or more during the preceding calendar year Coverage required when the employee earns $1,500 or more from the employer during the 12 consecutive months x x x x (16) Kansas numerical exemption, but employers who pay less than $20,000 in payroll per year are $20,000 in payroll (excluding family members) $20,000 in payroll (excluding family members) x x (17) exempt When more than 2 employees each are regularly Kentucky When the employer chooses to do so employed forty or more hours a week as domestic x x x (18) servants Louisiana Employees makes more than $2,500 x Maine When the worker works more than a certain time period or when the employer has more than a certain number of employees If the employer chooses to cover them x x Maryland If the farmer has more than 3 full time employees or an annual payroll of at least $15,000 for full time employees Massachusetts Michigan Fewer than 3 part time employees, but all full time employees must be covered Minnesota Depending on hours worked, some employees may only have medical coverage If the farmer pays more than $8,000 in wages or has met liability insurance requirements and pays more than the statewide average annual wage If the employee earns more than $1,000 in a calendar quarter Workers must be covered if they work more than 16 hrs. per week Worker working more than 35 hrs. per week and not a family member living in the same household If a domestic worker earns $1,000 or more in any three month period or has earned $1,000 or more in any three month period of the previous year from the same single, private household x x (19) x x (20) x x (21) Mississippi Five When the employer chooses to cover them If the employer chooses to cover them x x x x x 19
20 TABLE 2. COVERAGE EXEMPTIONS FROM WORKERS' COMPENSATION AS OF JANUARY 1, 2007 This table displays information on which jurisdictions have exceptions to coverage for small employers, agricultural employers, and domestic employees; as well as other employees who may be excluded from workers compensation laws. Specific Exclusions for Small Employers Specific Exclusions for Agricultural Employers Specific Exclusions for Domestic Employers Other Employees Excluded from Coverage Employers Are Exempt Who Independent Casual Other (See / / / Employees Volunteers Prof. Conditions for Coverage Conditions for Coverage Employ Fewer Than Contractors Athletes tes) Missouri Five - except in construction where all employees must be covered Farm labor is exempt from coverage unless it is a corporate farm Montana Nebraska If they employ 10 or more unrelated full time employees on each work day for 13 calendar weeks in a calendar year Domestic workers in a private household are exempt x (22) If the employer elects to provide coverage and the insurer allows an election x x x x If the employer chooses to cover them x x x Nevada x x (23) New Brunswick Three, except in the fishing industry, where it is 25 When the employer has over a certain number of employees Domestic workers are not subject to the Act x x (24) New Hampshire x New Jersey x x x New Mexico Three New York When performing duties not specifically working with crops (e.g.. packaging and sales) When cash remuneration for all workers meets or exceeds $1,200 If the employer chooses to cover them (25) If worker works more than 40 hours per week or lives on premises rth Carolina Three (26) When 10 or more non-seasonal full time workers are If employer employs more than 10 full time nonseasonal workers (27) x x employed (28) rth Dakota When the employer chooses to cover them When the employer chooses to cover them x x x Ohio Household workers who earn one hundred sixty dollars or more in cash in any calendar quarter from a single household and casual workers who earn one hundred sixty dollars or more in cash in any calendar quarter from a single employer x x Oklahoma Coverage is required of an employer engaged in agriculture or horticulture with a gross annual payroll of $100,000 or more Coverage is required for private home or household with a gross annual payroll for domestic servants or causal workers of $10,000 or more x x x Ontario Worker working more than 24 hours a week x x x x Oregon Domestic workers are not subject to the Act x x x (29) Pennsylvania x x Prince Edward Island When the employer chooses to cover them When an employer chooses to cover them x x Coverage is required with 25 or more farm laborers or Rhode Island agricultural workers employed for 13 consecutive weeks producing and raising specified crops and x x x x (30) livestock Saskatchewan When an employer chooses to cover them When an employer chooses to cover them x x x x South Carolina Three When an employer chooses to cover them Over a certain number of employees x x x South Dakota When they are primarily in the business of operating threshing machines, grain combines, corn shellers, cornhuskers, shredders, silage cutters, and seed hullers for profit If the worker works at least 20 hours a week and 6 weeks in a 13 week period x x x Elected officials Tennessee Five, except in the construction industry they are required to have coverage if they have one x x x or more employees Texas When an employer chooses to cover them When an employer chooses to cover them x x x x US Federal Programs - FECA x x x 20
States of Confusion Workers Compensation Extraterritorial Issues By: Maureen Gallagher Introduction The focus of the paper is to give the reader a better understanding of the considerable overlap and conflict
KENTUCKY Guidebook to Workers Compensation Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Workers Claims 657 Chamberlin Avenue Frankfort, KY 40601 http://www.labor.ky.gov/workersclaims Commissioner Dwight T. Lovan
Employer s Guide to Workers Compensation 2 ABOUT PINNACOL ASSURANCE Mission statement To provide assured protection to Colorado employers and their greatest asset their employees. Who we are For more than
Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development Department of Unemployment Assistance The Employer s Guide to Unemployment Insurance Message to Massachusetts Employers Unemployment Insurance
Employer Guide to Reemployment Tax* RT-800002 R. 03/15 Table of Contents Introduction...2 Preface...2 Background...2 Classification of Workers...2 State Unemployment Tax Act (SUTA)...2 Federal Unemployment
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT Division of Workers Compensation EMPLOYER S GUIDE JULY 2005 THE INFORMATION IN THIS BOOKLET IS INTENDED TO BE GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE COLORADO WORKERS COMPENSATION
Introduction to Collection Representation by ROBERT E. MCKENZIE ARNSTEIN & LEHR SUITE 1200 120 SOUTH RIVERSIDE PLAZA CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 (312) 876-6927 REMCKENZIE@ARNSTEIN.COM http://www.mckenzielaw.com
The Labor Commission of Utah Division of Industrial Accidents Employers Guide to Workers Compensation Revised: August 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Who Should Be Covered... 1 Independent Contractors/Subcontractors...
MEPS Insurance Component Glossary of Health Insurance Terms Table of Contents I. Terms That Appear in the MEPS-IC Questionnaires: Active employee Health insurance plan Offer health insurance Typical pay
The Colorado Business Resource Guide Your success is Colorado s success. Partnering for the success of Colorado s business: A LETTER FROM THE COLORADO SBDC A PARTNERSHIP FOR BUSINESS SUCCESS COLORADO STYLE!
How Does the Workers' Compensation System in Florida Compare to Other States? Report Number 2002-117 November 2001 Prepared for The Florida Senate Prepared by Committee on Banking and Insurance Summary...
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE Unemployment Insurance Background Unemployment insurance was initiated on a national basis in the United States as Title III and Title IX of the Social Security Act of 1935. It is
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND YOU INFORMATION FOR INJURED WORKERS The purpose of this web brochure is to give a brief explanation of some basic information that you should know if you are injured on the job.
United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program STATE OPTIONS REPORT TENTH EDITION August 2012 Program Development Division INTRODUCTION Welcome
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS REGARDING WORKER S COMPENSATION INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS IN WISCONSIN Department of Workforce Development Worker s Compensation Division Bureau of Insurance Programs 201 E. Washington
Borrower Checklist GET STARTED use this checklist to ensure you have completed all required forms and have the right information. Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Review the information provided to help
This book replaces all previous versions of the handbook. ILLINOIS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION HANDBOOK ON WORKERS COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES HANDBOOK ON WORKERS COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL
Workers Compensation Compendium Kentucky 2014 Submitting attorneys David D. Black, Esq. Jay L. Sallee, Jr., Esq. Dinsmore & Shohl LLP 101 South Fifth Street, Suite 2500 Louisville, KY 40202 T 502.581.8000
Workers Compensation Supervisor s Manual The following materials were prepared for the use of employers and their claims administrators in the general administration of their workers compensation programs.
Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services 2014 Report on the Oregon Workers Compensation System Workers Compensation Twelfth Edition January 2015 2014 Report on the Oregon Workers Compensation
Loan Modification Checklist Complete 710 Borrower Financial Application/Modification Request Form Last Two (2) months paystubs dated within 60 days of Modification Request Signed copy of last two (2) years
ALABAMA UNEMPLOYMENT AND WORKERS COMPENSATION MANUAL A GUIDE TO SIMPLIFYING ALABAMA S EMPLOYMENT RELATED LAWS 2009 A Publication of the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE
WE ARE HERE TO HELP Dear : We know how challenging it can be when you re experiencing difficulty in keeping your mortgage payments current. Whether your situation is temporary or long-term, PNC Mortgage
Injury Compensation for Federal Employees Publication CA-810 U.S. Department of Labor Hilda L. Solis, Secretary CA-810 Revised 2009 This material was prepared by the Office of Workers Compensation Programs
Secretary of State Audit Report Kate Brown, Secretary of State Gary Blackmer, Director, Audits Division Save on Vocational Rehabilitation Costs to Serve More Clients Summary Oregon's Office of Vocational