The Legislature made no statutory changes to the Workers’ Compensation Act in 2025.  Georgia’s maximum TTD rate remains at $800.00 and maximum TPD rate at $533.00. Additionally, the Georgia Court of Appeals and Supreme Court continue the trend of accepting very few workers’ compensation appeals. Most recently, in McKay v. Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc., 374 Ga. App. 526 (2025), the Court of Appeals addressed the longstanding Rycroft defense. Under Rycroft, an employee’s misrepresentation as to a pre-existing condition will bar benefits if: (a) the employee knowingly and willfully made a false representation as to his/her physical condition; (b) the employer relied upon the false representation as a substantial factor in the hiring process; and (c) there is a causal connection between the false representation and the injury. In McKay, the employee failed to disclose his history of back surgery in a post-offer medical questionnaire. He injured his back at work and disclosed his history after this first accident. The employee continued to work after the disclosure and suffered a second accident involving his back months later. The Court of Appeals confirmed Rycroft applied to bar his first accident. However, the Court of Appeals found the Employer waived its right to assert Rycroft in retaining the claimant after his disclosure thus rendering the second accident compensable. McKay raises the bar for Employers and mandates action to preserve Rycroft once a disclosure is made. 

Copyright 2025, Stone Loughlin & Swanson, LLP 

1. The violations are serious, involving $ in late medical benefits, income benefits, travel reimbursement, and attorney fees. Further, Respondent did not comply with the interest payment obligation in File No. 36758 until it received notice of enforcement action. Also, Respondent’s failure to comply with six DWC orders is a priority investigation under Tex. Lab. Code § 402.0235;
2. Respondent has a history of 195 administrative violations since , including 54 violations involving attorney fees, medical bill payment,• and travel reimbursement;
3. A penalty is necessary to deter future violations considering Respondent has had 195 administrative violations since ;
4. Respondent received an economic benefit from the prohibited acts to the detriment of multiple system participants; and Respondent is the 11th largest workers’ compensation insurance carrier in Texas and has a heightened awareness of the legal duty to comply with the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act and DWC rules.

On June 1, 2025, the revised Texas Administrative Code §133.30 (“Telemedicine, Telehealth, and Teledentistry Services”) went into effect.  As of that date, treating doctors—though not Designated Doctors or Required Medical Examiners—are permitted to perform MMI evaluations remotely via telemedicine.  The certifying doctor is only allowed to determine if MMI has been attained and, if so, to provide a determination of no permanent impairment. 
 
The rule specifies, “The term [telemedicine services] does not include an examination to assign an impairment rating” under Rule 130.1.  The injured worker must have been examined by the treating doctor for the same condition(s) at least once prior to the telemedicine exam, and he/she must agree to be certified in that manner. 
 
Injuries to be rated in this manner must qualify for no impairment, cannot require further treatment, and must be considered “minor” in accordance with Rule 130.2(a)(2).  That subsection allows a treating doctor to provide an MMI certification without scheduling an examination only if the injured employee is not receiving Temporary Income Benefits and has been released from treatment without the expectation of further treatment.

Copyright 2025, Stone Loughlin & Swanson, LLP

New Rollout: ICA Introduces Updated Form 101 – Employer’s Report of Accident

The Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) has officially launched its newly updated Form 101 – Employer’s Report of Accident as part of a modernization initiative directed by the Governor’s Office. A recent presentation by the ICA introduced the changes and provided important rollout details for employers and stakeholders.

What’s New?

This updated form aims to simplify the reporting process while ensuring critical information is captured:

• Simplified layout and removal of outdated or unnecessary fields.
• New fields added, such as dominant upper extremity, which plays a role in determining permanent disability awards.
• Web-based submission only – The Commission will not accept service via fax or mail.

Compliance Deadline

Per ARS § 23-908(G), employers must report workplace injuries within 10 days.
The new online-only form was released on April 7, 2025, and the ICA is allowing a 90-day transition period.
Effective Monday, July 7, 2025, the ICA will no longer accept faxed or mailed versions of Form 101.

Complete the new form here:
https://www.azica.gov/forms/employers-report-injury-form

Signature Process & Confirmation

After the form is completed:

1. The submitter will receive an email requesting a digital signature.
2. Once signed, a confirmation email will be sent along with the option to download a copy for records.

Access Issues

There was some confusion about the form’s visibility on the ICA Community page:

• It is supposed to appear under “Claims” as the second form at the bottom.
• However, if logged into the ICA account, the form may not appear due to a technical issue. ICA is working to resolve this.
• In the meantime, the direct link above remains functional.

Employer Outreach & TPA Clarification

ICA encourages carriers to notify employers of this change and recommend attending upcoming training sessions. More presentations are scheduled next week, and ICA may add additional sessions based on demand.

At the present time, Third-Party Administrators (TPAs) can submit this form on behalf of employers. The Commission has indicated they will issue separate direction concerning TPA processing of this form. Ritsema will update clients regarding any administrative guidance received from the Commission.

New Rollout: ICA Introduces Updated Form 105 – New Notice of Suspension Informational Meeting

The Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) has proposed a new Form 105 – Notice of Suspension, intended for use by carriers or self‑insured employers to formally notify injured workers when their workers’ compensation benefits are suspended (e.g. due to noncompliance or missed medical requirements).

⚠️ The form is not yet effective. To review and provide feedback, the ICA is hosting an informational stakeholder meeting on October 8, 2025.
🔗 Join the stakeholder meeting on 10/08/2025

Why this matters:

• Stakeholders can ask questions, offer commentary, and help shape how Form 105 will be implemented.

• Employers, claims professionals, attorneys, providers, and injured worker advocates should participate to stay ahead of compliance changes.

• After the meeting, ICA will issue a formal announcement of the effective date and procedural guidelines.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals recently dealt a blow to what’s known as the “Shipper Transport defense” when it found that a claimant was not barred from receiving workers compensation benefits for a torn bicep tendon even though he lied about having preexisting neck, back and shoulder issues on his post-offer/pre-placement health questionnaire which may have led to him being placed in a position which the employer likely would not have placed him in if they had been given an accurate medical history. Int'l Paper Co. v. Steward, 2024 Ark. App. 465, 700 S.W.3d 204. In 1979, the Arkansas Supreme Court established the Shippers Transport defense when it held that a workers compensation claimant would be barred from receiving workers compensation benefits if Respondents proved (1) that the employee knowingly and willfully made a false representation as to his/her physical condition, (2) that the employer relied upon the employee’s false representation, with such reliance playing a substantial factor in the hiring of the employee, and (3) that there was a causal connection between the false representation and the claimant’s injury.  Shippers Transp. of Ga. v. Stepp, 265 Ark. 365, 369, 578 S.W.2d 232, 234 (1979). In affirming the Full Commission’s and Administrative Law Judge’s narrow interpretation of Shippers Transport, the Arkansas Court of Appeals found that the Respondent Employer failed to satisfy the second prong of the test in establishing that they relied on the claimant’s false misrepresentations in hiring the claimant because the claimant had already been hired when he filled out the health questionnaire and lied about his preexisting conditions. Int'l Paper Co., 2024 Ark. App. 465 at 11.

Although the rationale behind the rulings of the Commission, Administrative Law Judge and Court of Appeals was fairly straightforward, it leaves employers beholden to the representations of newly hired workers regarding their physical limitations and preexisting injuries. At first glance, an Arkansas employer may want to avoid the dilemma that International Paper Company found itself in by having a job applicant fill out a health questionnaire before any employment offer is made so that the employer can figure out whether they have any open jobs that are suitable for the applicant’s physical condition while still being able to fall back on the Shippers Transport defense in case the applicant lies about their medical conditions. However, the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employers from asking a job applicant if they are disabled, asking about the severity or nature of any impairment, or having the applicant fill out a medical questionnaire before the employer makes a job offer. This leaves Arkansas employers in a legal Catch-22 because on one hand they are barred under federal law from asking applicants about their physical condition prior to making a job offer, and on the other hand, they are required to prove that they relied on the claimant's pre-offer misrepresentations about their physical condition in deciding to hire the claimant to successfully assert the Shippers Transport defense.

As suggested by Arkansas Workers Compensation Commissioner Michael Mayton in his dissenting opinion, “[t]he rule of law in the Shippers Transport case should be expanded beyond the actual moment of hiring to encompass the entire hiring process, including job placement.” Ronald Steward, Emp., Claimant v. International Paper Co., Emp., Respondent & Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs. Inc., Carrier/TPA, Respondent, No. H109777 (Ark. Work. Comp. Com., May 2, 2023), at *13. Employers like International Paper Company should be able to rely on the representations of new employees completing post-offer medical questionnaires and undergoing medical examinations in determining which job most safely suits those employees’ medical conditions and physical restrictions without worrying that they’ll be stuck footing the bill for an aggravation of a preexisting injury that could have been avoided if the employee was honest about their medical history in the first place. 

Unfortunately, we do not know how the current Arkansas Supreme Court would have applied the Shippers Transport defense to the facts of this case because the case was not appealed after the Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the award of benefits to the claimant. Therefore, Arkansas employers should ensure that they ask one of the few questions allowed under the Americans with Disabilities Act during the interview process, which is whether the applicant can perform the specific duties of a job with or without reasonable accommodation. Arkansas courts have not yet considered whether an employer would satisfy the second prong of the Shippers Transport test if they proved that they relied on the claimant’s dishonest answer to the foregoing question in hiring the claimant. However, employers would undoubtedly have a better chance of successfully asserting the Shippers Transport defense in the above scenario than if they continued to only have new employees fill out post-offer health questionnaires or undergo medical examinations where the employee will be able to lie about their preexisting health condition and physical restrictions without the risk of being barred from receiving workers compensation benefits. When inquiring about the applicant’s ability to perform job duties though, it’s imperative that employers avoid asking if the applicant is disabled or probing further by asking about the nature or severity of that applicant’s disability because such questions would leave the employer at risk of being sued for violating the applicant’s civil rights by discriminating against them in the hiring process on the basis of their disability.