Michigan House Bill HB5190

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 10/30/25
• Refer: 10/30/25

Caption

Worker's compensation: benefits; vocational rehabilitation benefits offered to injured workers; enhance. Amends sec. 319 of 1969 PA 317 (MCL 418.319).

Impact

The amendments proposed by HB 5190 impact the administrative processes surrounding vocational rehabilitation. It requires that if vocational rehabilitation services are not initially offered, a director can order an evaluation by a vocational rehabilitation provider. This provider will assess the needs of the employee and develop a tailored rehabilitation plan that addresses educational and vocational history, interests, and aptitudes. The proposed changes aim to streamline the rehabilitation process, ensuring employees receive the support needed to re-enter the workforce efficiently.

Summary

House Bill 5190 aims to amend Michigan's Worker's Disability Compensation Act of 1969, specifically focusing on enhancing the provisions related to vocational rehabilitation for employees who have suffered injuries covered under the Act. The bill establishes clearer guidelines for the medical rehabilitation services that injured employees are entitled to receive promptly. It emphasizes the importance of vocational rehabilitation services that include retraining and job placement, ensuring that employees can regain a remunerative occupation similar to their wage-earning capacity prior to the injury.

Conclusion

Overall, HB 5190 seeks to enhance worker protection and improve outcomes for injured employees through a proactive and structured approach to vocational rehabilitation. Should it pass, the bill would necessitate significant changes to how vocational rehabilitation is administered in Michigan, with the aim of better assisting workers in returning to gainful employment.

Contention

One notable point of contention may arise concerning the timeframe for vocational rehabilitation services, which HB 5190 outlines as not to exceed a period of 52 weeks unless extended by special order. Some stakeholders might argue that this limitation could inadequately support individuals with extensive recovery needs. Additionally, there are provisions for penalties if employees unjustifiably refuse rehabilitation services, which could be controversial if seen as punitive rather than supportive.