Connecticut House Bill HB05560

Connecticut 2021 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/26/21
• Refer: 1/26/21

Caption

An Act Concerning Workers' Compensation Benefits For Certain Mental Or Emotional Impairments Suffered By Emergency Medical Services Personnel, Department Of Correction Employees And Dispatchers.

Impact

The enactment of HB 05560 would amend existing workers' compensation statutes to explicitly include mental and emotional impairments as compensable conditions for the specified occupational groups. This change could lead to a significant cultural shift within the workplace, particularly in emergency service sectors, recognizing mental health as equally important as physical health. By expanding benefits, the bill supports employees in seeking assistance and treatment for mental health issues, which may lead to greater job satisfaction and retention in high-stress roles.

Summary

House Bill 05560 proposes an amendment to the state's workers' compensation laws to extend benefits for mental or emotional impairments specifically to emergency medical services personnel, Department of Correction employees, and dispatchers. This bill acknowledges the unique stress and psychological burden these roles carry, advocating for enhanced support and recognition of their mental health needs. The extension of benefits aims to reduce barriers for these individuals seeking compensation for mental health issues that can arise from their job-related stressors and experiences.

Contention

While there is general agreement on the merit of supporting mental health for emergency services and correctional personnel, some concerns have been voiced regarding the potential for increased costs to the workers' compensation system. Critics worry that extending these benefits could lead to higher premiums or increased strain on resources allocated for workers' compensation claims. Supporters argue that the long-term benefits of treating mental health issues—such as improved workforce efficacy and reduced absenteeism—outweigh these costs. The debate about the bill thus emphasizes a balance between enhancing protection for vulnerable workers and managing the financial implications for the state and employers.