Virginia Workers’ Compensation Legislative Update 2025

In the most recent session of the General Assembly, Democrats controlled both the Senate and House of Delegates, checked by the Republican Governor. This dynamic resulted in only a single change to the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act (Title 65.2). However, there are multiple failed bills that bear analysis for the insight they provide into the thought processes of our legislators and the direction workers’ compensation law may take in the future.

The sole bill that passed is HB1933/SB920, which alters the cancer presumption in 65.2-402. Part C under 65.2-402 provides that a variety of types of cancer, including throat cancer, are presumed to be occupational diseases when causing impairment to members of specific groups of state employees, including firefighters and certain officers in the State Police. The new bill adds more detail to the presumption, specifying that throat cancer includes cancer that forms in the tissues of the pharynx, larynx, adenoid, tonsil, esophagus, trachea, nasopharynx, oropharynx, or hypopharynx. This bill applies only to diseases diagnosed on or after July 1, 2025. The consequences of HB1933/SB920 are minimal. It helps clarify the meaning of 65.2-402 but does not dramatically alter the exposure to employers or benefits available to workers.

The multiple failed bills fall into five different categories:

• Deadline for employers to issue decisions regarding medical care
• Firefighter infertility presumptions of compensability
• Cumulative trauma/repetitive and sustained physical stressors
• PTSD Presumption for law enforcement officers and firefighters
• Compensation to dependents or beneficiaries of an employee killed

Deadline for Medical Care Decisions
House Bill 1749 was an attempt to impose a 45-day deadline for employers to reach a decision regarding medical care requested by an employee from the date of the request. Currently, if an employer does not authorize treatment, the worker’s recourse is to request a hearing before the Commission. If HB1749 passed, the only practical difference would be that an employer must definitively decline treatment within 45 days of the request, which would presumably then prompt the employee to seek a hearing on the issue. The bill seems designed to prevent a scenario where an employee’s request for treatment is met with silence and the employer stalls indefinitely to protract the dispute. While this is not an intrinsically objectionable goal, it is unclear if it is truly necessary to the point of justifying the additional administrative requirements it would entail.

Firefighter Infertility
HB274 sought to establish that firefighters who suffer from infertility are presumed to have developed infertility during the course and scope of their employment. Such infertility would be compensable under the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act if diagnosed by a medical professional and compensation could include medical treatment, temporary total incapacity benefits, and temporary partial incapacity benefits for a maximum period of 52 weeks from the date of diagnosis. This bill would have created an entirely new area of compensability for firefighters specifically. However, because of the limited scope of potential beneficiaries, it does not seem likely that this would have had a drastic impact upon carriers and employers.

Cumulative Trauma/Repetitive and Sustained Physical Stressors
SB520, SB788, SB803, SB112, and HB2481 all sought to change 65.2-400 to redefine occupational disease to include injuries or diseases from conditions resulting from repetitive and sustained physical stressors, including repetitive and sustained motions, exertions, posture stresses, contact stresses, vibrations, or noises. The language used in the various proposals would have provided that such injuries and diseases are covered by the Act, and that coverage did not require that the repetitive or sustained physical stress occur over a particular period. The proposals did generally require that the period over which the physical stress occurred can be reasonably identified, and that exposure to such repetitive and sustained physical stressors in the course of employment is the primary cause of the disease/injury.

Virginia is the only state where the workers’ compensation laws do not provide coverage for cumulative trauma injuries. In 2018, the Virginia Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission directed its staff to assess whether Virginia’s disease presumptions were appropriate, among other goals. JLARC found that cumulative trauma injury costs were not a major driver of worker’s compensation premiums in other states and recommended that legislation be proposed to expand coverage much in the way that the five bills attempted. The research and data cited by the JLARC report is far from exhaustive, but it does indicate that there are at least nine states with lower workers’ compensation premiums for employers despite covering cumulative trauma injuries at an evidentiary standard lower than ‘clear and convincing.’ The report also provides evidence that cumulative trauma benefits paid on average are lower than standard medical benefits paid or indemnity benefits.

While the JLARC report suggests that adding compensability for cumulative trauma would not have a dramatic impact on Virginia Workers’ Compensation (especially if done at the ‘clear and convincing’ standard that applies to hearing loss and carpal tunnel presently), there would certainly be some impact. Given the prevalence of coverage for cumulative trauma in the other 49 states, the recommendations of JLARC, and the extensive efforts of legislators to push these changes, it seems likely that change is coming, though it is unclear when and how exactly cumulative trauma may be treated in Virginia.

PTSD Presumption for Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters
In the law at present 65.2-107 provides benefits for law-enforcement officers and firefighters for post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder, or depressive disorder incurred in the line of duty, as well as presumptions of compensability. These benefits are limited by subsection C, which establishes that any benefits under this provision “…be provided for a maximum of 52 weeks from the date of diagnosis”.

The status quo under 65.2-107 is that if a LEO or firefighter diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety, or depression arising in the line of duty files a claim for benefits, they have a lower burden of proof than other workers might in a similar situation. Their benefits are effectively capped to a maximum of 1 years’ worth, though, limiting the employer’s exposure.

Multiple bills were introduced that tried in various ways to increase the 52-week limit. HB2060 sought to increase to 104 weeks, SB1301 sought to expand the limit for PTSD specifically to 500 weeks, and SB860 increased the limit to 500 weeks for PTSD, depression, and anxiety, as well as expanding the definition of law enforcement officer to include any civilian employed by a local government as a crime scene investigator.

The desire of legislators to provide improved access to workers’ compensation benefits to employees performing important emergency public service roles is not surprising nor controversial. SB860, however, gives a glimpse into a change to Virginia workers’ compensation law that would vastly increase the exposure of some employers in specific circumstances. Namely, the employers of firefighters and law-enforcement officers who develop nearly any mental illness in the line of duty could potentially be on the hook for 500 weeks of benefits if SB860 were passed. The employers that would have to bear the increased exposure would almost exclusively be local governments and their carriers.

All of the bills affecting 65.2-107 were failed, generally being tabled in Finance and Appropriations. Unlike the changes to cumulative trauma, it is unclear whether these changes are based on research data or other motivations, and whether the next session will see renewed efforts to expand the PTSD presumption for LEOs and firefighters.

Compensation to Dependents or Beneficiaries of an Employee Killed
Currently, 65.2-512 provides that if an employee dies within 9 years of an accident as a result of the compensable accident, indemnity benefits at the standard compensation rate will be paid to dependents/beneficiaries in different categories for different amounts of time. In short, spouses and children under 18 receive 500 weeks of benefits from the date of injury, if none exist then parents in destitute circumstances receive 400 weeks from the date of injury, and if none exist then to partial dependents for a period of 400 weeks from the date of injury.

SB1299 proposed revising 65.2-512 to pay benefits out in a much more extensive hierarchy. Under the proposed legislation, benefits would first go to the surviving spouse and children (and only if there are surviving children) for a period of 500 weeks from the date of injury. If none exist then to the parents, brothers, and sisters of the deceased employee for 400 weeks from the date of injury. If neither of the first two categories exist, then the award shall be distributed to the surviving spouse and parents for 400 weeks from the date of injury. If none of the first 3 categories exist, benefits are to be distributed to those dependents and any other relative who is primarily dependent on the decedent and is also a member of the same household, for a period of 400 weeks from the date of injury. Lastly, if none of the prior categories exist, benefits are to be paid in the course of descents as established in 64.2-200, for a period of 400 weeks (excepting any parent who has had parental rights terminated).

The impact of SB1299 would have been to greatly expand the pool of potential beneficiaries for any employee killed because of a workplace accident. It is uncertain the extent of the impact this would have on carriers and employers, but it would open new avenues for plaintiff’s attorneys to seek recovery.

Conclusion
While many substantial changes to workers’ compensation law in Virginia were proposed, none materialized into actual legislation. And while it might have been expected that the Republican governor would serve as a check on the Democratic legislature, all the failed bills did so before reaching the stage of gubernatorial review. The general impression is that the legislature is being cautious in advance of the upcoming elections in November. Depending on the results this fall, we may see concerted efforts to enact changes to VA 65.2.

Should you have any questions about the issues discussed here or other legal issues, please do not hesitate to contact the lawyers at Ford Richardson.

Ford Richardson is a full-service law firm with headquarters located in Richmond’s financial district and satellite offices in Roanoke, Fairfax and Virginia Beach and Washington, D.C..

Our commitment to our clients is simple: offer top-tier clear legal solutions that allow our clients to excel in their business.

We are privileged to give back to our community and believe it is our responsibility to do so. Our attorneys and support staff serve as leaders and volunteers to a wide array of civic and charitable organizations.

Posted In: E-Blast