NCSI Scoop - 2022/Q1

NCSI Scoop THE CONTINUING SAGA OF OSHA’S COVID-19 EMERGENCY... | U.S. SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES FEDERAL COVID MANDATES | IN MEMORIAM – CLIFFORD I. GANAN | MONTANA’S TEAMSTERS AND THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE | WELCOME PETER STRAUSS TO THE NCSI EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE | NCSI JOINS BUSINESS COALITION... | NCSI 2022 ANNUAL MEETING AND CONFERENCE

2022/Q1

NCSI S

Courtesy Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

The Continuing Saga of OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard for Large Employers

On November 4, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued its long-awaited emergency temporary standard (the ET S) on COVID-19.

Broadly speaking, the ETS requires employers with 100 or more employees to ensure that their workforce is fully vaccinated or require any unvaccinated employees to produce a weekly negative test and to wear a mask in order to work.

Here are the details of the proposed standard: The ETS would apply to private employers with 100 or more employees company-wide. Parttime employees and employees who work from home or in the field would be included in the count. Employers would not be required to count workers from staffing agencies who

work at their site, In states with OSHA-approved State Plans, state and local government employers with 100 or more employees would also be covered by the ETS through state OSHA requirements.

The following workplaces would not be covered by the ETS: (1) workplaces covered under the September 2021 COVID-19 Executive Order for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors; (2) health care settings where any employee provides health care services or health care support services when subject to the requirements of 29 C.F.R. S 1910.502 (OSHA’s Health Care COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard); (3) workplaces of employers who have less than 100 employees company-wide; and (4) public employers in states without State Plans.

Even if the ETS would apply to an employer, it would not apply to employees: (1) while working from home; (2) who work exclusively outdoors; or (3) who do not report to a workplace where other persons are present. The ETS will require employers to comply with the following requirements: • Implement either: (1) a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy; or (2) a policy that requires unvaccinated employees to undergo weekly testing and wear a face covering at work in most circumstances. If an employer has workers who are exempt from a mandatory vaccine policy due to medical restrictions, disability, or religious beliefs, the employer must maintain a testing/face covering policy applicable to such persons.

2 / N ATIO NAL CO UNC I L OF S E LF -I N S U R E RS’

Scoop • Obtain proof of vaccination from vaccinated employees and maintain a record of each employee’s vaccination status • Provide employees with a reasonable amount of paid time off (up to four hours) to receive each primary vaccination dose.

• Provide employees with a reasonable amount of time and paid sick leave (up to two days) to recover from side effects experienced from each primary vaccination dose.

• Ensure each employee who is not fully vaccinated is tested for COVID-19 weekly or, if away from a work location for a week or more, within seven days before returning to the work location.

Employers must retain a record of each employee test result.

• Require employees to promptly provide notice when they test positive for or are diagnosed with COVID-19, and keep such employees out of the workplace until specified return-to-work criteria are met.

• Require employees who are not fully vaccinated to wear a face covering when indoors or in a vehicle with another person for work purposes (with limited exceptions). Employers are not required to pay for any costs associated with face coverings.

• Provide employees with information regarding the following (in a language and at a literacy level the employee understands): • The ETS and related employer policies (OSHA has provided sample policy templates for this purpose; • OSHA’s anti-retaliation provisions; and • OSHA’s criminal penalties for knowingly supplying false statements or documentatiom.

• Provide employees with a copy of the CDC document) “Key Things to Know about COVID-19 Vaccines.”

• Report work-related COVID-19 fatalities to OSHA within eight hours of learning about them and work-related COVID-19 in-patient hospitalizations within 24 hours of learning about them.

• Make certain records available for examination and copying by employees (or others having written consent of the employee) or an employee representative, including the aggregate number of fully vaccinated employees at a workplace along with the total number of employees at that workplace.

The ETS would provide that employers will not be required to pay for any costs associated with COVID-19 testing required by the ETS. However, the ETS as issued provided that employer payment for such testing may be required by other laws, regulations, or collective bargaining agreements. This is an area of significant legal uncertainty, particularly for employers with operations in California and other states with employee-friendly wage and hour laws.

The ETS will allow for the use of any COVID-19 diagnostic test cleared, approved, or authorized, including in an Emergency Use Authorization, by the FDA. However, an employee cannot both selfadminister and self-read the test unless the process is observed by the employer or by an authorized telehealth proctor. Antibody tests do not satisfy the testing requirement of the ET S. The ETS notes that employees may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation for disability or a sincerely held religious belief, observance, or practice. Employers are instructed to consult EEOC regulations and guidance for additional information The ETS originally provided that by December 5, 2021, employers must have complied with all of the ETS provisions, except for the unvaccinated worker testing requirement. The testing requirement was to go into effect on January 4, 2022 However, immediately after the release of the ETS, multiple lawsuits were filed across the country challenging the OSHA’s standard. There were

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE...

Q1 2022 / 3

challenges filed in at least 1 1 different Circuits. Suits had been filed by states, interest groups, private employers, and others.

On November 6th, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay halting enforcement of the ETS pending further judicial review. On Friday, November 12th, the Court extended its stay. This meant that the ETS would not yet go into effect While the Fifth Circuit decision received outsized media attention, it was just the beginning of the litigation process.

Next up, a single Circuit Court was to be selected to hear all of the legal challenges to the ETS. That court was to be selected by a lottery conducted by the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which would select a circuit court of appeals from a drum containing an entry for each circuit where a case is pending. This lottery was expected to occur on November 16th.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals won the lottery conducted by the federal Judicial Panel, and was the designated Court to hear the numerous legal challenges to the ETS filed across the United States. Thus, while most Americans feasted on turkey and stuffing during Thanksgiving week, the Sixth Circuit dug into motions and briefing regarding the OSHA’s emergency temporary standard on COVID-19 (the ETS).

On November 23, 2021, OSHA filed a motion asking the Sixth Circuit to lift the Fifth Circuit’s stay while the case was pending. Alternatively, OSHA urged the Sixth Circuit to modify the stay order to allow the ETS testing and masking requirements for unvaccinated employees to go into effect, even if a stay remained for other vaccinationrelated provisions of the ETS. The Sixth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over cases arising in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee, was viewed as a favorable draw by those hoping to stop OSHA

from implementing the ETS. While politics is not a perfect proxy for how a court will rule on these novel issues, it was worth noting that approximately two-thirds of the full-time judges in the Sixth Circuit were appointed by Republican Presidents.

Before the Sixth Circuit issued any substantive rulings, the Court had to first decide who will make those rulings. Cases are normally assigned to a randomly chosen three-judge panel.

Multiple petitions had been filed to have the case heard en banc, meaning the matter would be heard by the entire Sixth Circuit rather than a threejudge panel. The Court had ordered responses to those petitions to be filed

by November 30, 2021 On December 15, 2021, the Sixth Circuit decided the procedural matter, ruling that the case would be heard by a three-judge panel chosen at random rather than en banc by the entire Sixth Circuit. The sixteen active Sixth Circuit judges split 8-8 on the motion, which thus failed to garner the majority necessary to approve the request to refer the matter directly for en banc determination.

The legal battle over the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s emergency temporary standard on COVID-19 (the ETS) next took a dramatic twist on December 17. Mere days after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear the matter en banc, three judge panel dissolved the stay previously entered by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

4 / N ATIO NAL CO UNC I L OF S E LF -I N S U R E RS’

In a 2-1 decision authored by Judge Stranchl the panel majority concluded that the ETS would likely pass constitutional and statutory muster, and that a continued stay would be inappropriate. Judge Gibbons joined this opinion and also authored a brief concurrence in which she emphasized her view that the judiciary has a very narrow role to play in addressing disputes over pandemic policy. Judge Larsen dissented, in an opinion reminiscent of Chief Judge Sutton’s dissent in response to the denial of en banc review.

On the heels of the Sixth Circuit’s decision to lift the stay, OSHA almost immediately provided employers with some clarity and breathing room regarding the timing for enforcing the ETS requirements. On December 18, 2021, the agency announced that it will not issue citations for noncompliance with any requirements of the ETS before January 10, 2022, and will not issue citations for noncompliance with the standard’s testing requirements before February 9, 2022, so long as an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the standard.

As anticipatedi the challengers to the OSHA ETS (including 27 states) acted promptly, already filing multiple emergency applications to the U.S. Supreme Court. According to an order issued December 22, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for one hour on January 7 on OSHA’s emergency temporary standard on COVID-19. The special session that includes the OSHA ETS will be consolidated with another lawsuit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ vaccination requirement for healthcare workers whose facilities participate in Medicare and Medicaid. After that session, the Supreme Court will decide its next step(s) concerning the ETS lawsuit. That may include a stay of the ETS pending further action.

Courtesy Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Federal COVID Mandates On January 13, 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court brought clarity to the status of the separate COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which provided a vaccineor-test requirement for employers with over 100 employees, and the rule issued by the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS), which mandated vaccination for employees of providers who receive Medicaid or Medicare funding. In

a 6-3 decision regarding the OSHA ETS, the Court reinstated the stay lifted by the Sixth Circuit, blocking enforcement of the vaccine-or-test mandate. In its decision on the CMS mandate, however, the Court, by a 5-4 vote, stayed the preliminary injunctions issued by two district courts and permitted the mandate to take effect nationally.

On January 25, OSHA announced that it would withdraw its COVID-19 Testing or Vaccination Emergency Temporary Standard. OSHA’s

decision to withdraw the ETS does not entirely end OSHA’s potential attempts to further regulate COVID-19 in the workplace. In fact, OSHA made clear that it was not “withdrawing the ETS as a proposed rule,” and the agency “remains focused on finalizing a permanent COVID Healthcare Standard.” In plainer words, OSHA may use the ETS as a blueprint for a permanent COVID workplace safety standard.

(Here is a link to a longer article on the history of the litigated rules.)

In Memoriam – Clifford I. Ganan

The National Council of SelfInsurers lost a great friend and longtime supporter when Clifford I. Ganan passed away in February.

Cliff was active in the National Council for decades and served as a member of the Executive Committee for many years as the liaison

representative for our professional members. Cliff was a graduate of the University of Illinois and the DePaul Law School. In 1970 he launched Gannon & Shapiro, a Chicago law firm specializing in workers’ compensation defense. The firm remained a strong supporter of the Council through the years and its members have been regular attendees and participants in NCSI conferences.

Cliff was aptly described as a “gentleman lawyer”. He was a lawyer who believed in and exhibited traditional values and principles. He was also a lawyer who believed in developing relationships to ensure that the needs and goals of those he worked for and worked with

were understood and addressed.

Cliff garnered respect from his colleagues for his honesty and forthrightness. These qualities marked Cliff both as a lawyer and, as importantly, as a man. His influence was felt within NCSI not only for his deep understanding of workers’ compensation but also by his simple focus on making all feel welcome and included. He was a true friend who made you smile, laugh and enjoy the time that you were together.

Cliff will be missed by his many friends at NCSI. The National Council made a donation in the amount of $1,000 in Cliff’s memory to Kids’ Chance of Illinois.

Q1 2022 / 5

Montana’s Teamsters and the Chamber of Commerce

So, a Montana Teamster and a Montana Chamber of Commerce representative walk into a bar to talk about workers’ compensation...

Sounds like the start of a joke, doesn’t it? Well, it could be, but Montana and bars are not just for drinking – lots of meetings take place in them. Wait – what?

Montana’s Teamsters and the Chamber sitting down together on comp issues?

The Montana Self Insurers Association (MSIA) Board of Directors recognized the need for leadership to stop the endless fighting over the same issues and lack of trust in the individuals

representing labor and business.

Recognizing that working together helps get better things done, the MSIA leadership brought together labor leaders and business to find the common ground on comp issues that is so elusive during legislative sessions. The result is the new Workers’ Compensation Council of Montana (WCCM) a coalition of labor and business to address workers’ compensation issues in the state.

Their charge to the new MSIA’s Executive Director was to set about creating an environment where real progress could be made with labor and business, while recognizing that sometimes, we’re just not going to be able to agree. However,

6 / N ATIO NAL CO UNC I L OF S E LF -I N S U R E RS’

that should not stop us from trying to find agreement and common ground when we can.

The MSIA Board recognized the need for better dialogue and that there are few people or organizations in the state who could provide the focus, effort and knowledge of the state’s workers’ compensation system to bring these groups together. The 2020 election brought a change in the party controlling the Governor’s office for the first time in almost a generation. MSIA started by asking newly elected Governor Greg Gianforte (R) to continue the previously appointed Labor Management Advisory Council,

run by the previous two Democratic administrations, to make some changes to that group and appoint new people.

Governor Gianforte wanted to change the role of government and rather than require labor and business to sit down together, as was done by the prior administrations, his challenge to the system stakeholders was to create a group that wanted to sit down together.

It may be a subtle difference, but it is significant. No one is pointing a gun to our heads requiring us to address specific issues. No one has a special imprimatur of being appointed by the Governor.

The MSIA took up the challenge and created the WCCM because we see value, personally and professionally, in creating or continuing a dialogue on the different issues. No one is creating an agenda for us, no one is forcing meetings into the calendar.

Perhaps more important, our first agreement was to let each other know of efforts we will be undertaking on issues we disagree on. The goal is no surprises – no legislative “gotchya’s.”

The new WCCM is made up of labor leaders from the MT Laborers, MT Teamsters, the MT AFL/CIO and the MT Trial Lawyers Association. Their CoChair is Don Judge, brother of a former Governor and retired labor leader.

The business side includes the MT Chamber of Commerce, the Montana Construction Compensation Fund, Midlands Claim Service, a third party claims administrator, private insurers and the MT State Fund and the business Co-Chair is Peter Strauss of the MSIA. The Montana Department of Labor, our workers’ compensation regulator, the Montana Medical Association and others are included as invited guests as we deal with the issues.

Don’t get me wrong – it isn’t nirvana.

We disagree – but we are allowing each other gracious space – none of the usual name calling, no loud voices and only minor personal digs at each other

provided with a smile instead of a sneer.

It is after all, Montana where not only do we know each other, we’re likely to be neighbors. That’s important. Montana is still a place where we help our neighbors when they need us. Harsh winters and summer wildfires do not ask about political persuasion before they wreak havoc, nor do we when our neighbors need help - we just help.

As many are aware, the American Medical Association has proposed annual updates to the 6th Edition of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment first published in 2008 (AMA Guides). Their first two annual updates, for the 2021 and 2022 editions of the AMA Guides, according to Montana physicians who work in the system, do not provide much new medical procedures or approaches.

They also pointed out the new Guides will only be available through an annual subscription and the webbased program is not particularly intuitive nor easy to use. As a result, and after labor and business heard from the Montana Medical Association confirming the issues, the first thing the new coalition did was to request that our law, requiring the use of the 6th Edition (specifically not the most recent updates) not change to adopt the updates.

Montana physicians identified there were additional costs to purchase the annual subscription and additional delays in calculating an impairment rating because the new updates are not as intuitive as the existing books. Our labor leaders asked what the benefits to the system or injured workers was, and they could not identify what it might be. As a result, the WCCM unanimously approved a position to oppose the new updates use in our system.

Thus far, the Governor, legislative leaders and the regulators have heard labor, business and the medical community speak with one voice and there is no discussion of changing the law to support the new updates.

Other states seem to be following our

lead with some reportedly considering amendments to their laws to remove language requiring the most recent updates to the AMA Guides.

Next on our list – benefits. Benefits are always a hot topic in workers’ compensation circles.

Labor asked for a review of the Montana system benefit structure, with everyone’s expectation that would lead to a discussion of benefit levels. The Department of Labor staff did a great job of pulling together information from WCRI, NCCI and their own data bases to demonstrate that Montana benefits are low, but based on our Average Weekly Wage. One of the things we first documented was our benefit structure is about the same as most other states – so lower benefits are not based on the benefit structure. Our benefit levels are based on Montana’s work and economy, with an Average Weekly Wage which is lower than most other states.

We have higher than average medical costs, in part because we have fewer people to spread the system costs and because of the vast distances between medical providers and the scarcity of medical resources in a rural state.

Overall, our system costs are in the top 25% of the country. Even so, that’s a big change from a few years ago though.

We used to be among the top 3 highest system costs – we’re now number 12 or 13. And, we can see the national average of system costs from here. (That phrase is also a Montana thing – along the lines of, “This isn’t the end of the road, but you can see it from here.”)

Based on the standards used across the country, our benefits will always be low, in comparison. Typically Montana’s employment is higher than the national average and we have a higher percentage of the workforce holding more than one job (we have more jobs than people). Even so, with the changes the pandemic seems to have brought, our Average Weekly Wage, as the basis for benefits has increased about 8% in the past year - if not a record, darn close.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE...

Q1 2022 / 7

Our next challenge is to identify how we can reduce costs in the system, while considering increasing benefits. What friction costs, what unique features of the Montana system help drive costs those higher than average costs?

• We can look at how we calculate average weekly wage. Based on the unique economy of Montana, where ranching housing for workers and payment in sides of beef are more the norm, we include housing and provision of finished products as part of average weekly wage. Do we have to?

• Unlike most other state systems, Montana law provides both impairment and disability benefits. Do we have to?

• Montana also continues to hold onto mandatory vocational rehabilitation – with the idea that once you are injured in a physical labor job – as much of our payroll is based on – you likely will need other work and therefore training to qualify for that other work. In reality, I’m less confident that is how the mandatory voc rehab program actually works.

Can we find solutions? I am confident we can. Will everyone be happy about the solutions we find?

I am confident they will not. Will they work? Of course only time will answer to that one.

However, with a different mind set, a different approach and the leadership of Montana’s self-insurers community, we’ll have a better chance than we did in the past of making it work.

Welcome Peter Strauss to the NCSI Executive Committee

Peter Strauss is a workers’ compensation professional with over 35 years’ experience and has worked in 30 different U.S. jurisdictions. He is currently the Executive Director for the Montana Self Insurers’ Association.

Peter Strauss was appointed one of the Operations Vice Presidents for Montana State Fund in 2002 and served in that capacity until the company became regulated by the Montana Insurance Department in 2016. At that time, Strauss created

8 / N ATIO NAL CO UNC I L OF S E LF -I N S U R E RS’

the carriers’ insurance compliance program and served as the Compliance Officer until 2020.

As part of the MSF executive staff Strauss was responsible for strategic planning, enterprise-wide initiatives, budgets and performance. Strauss represented the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) from 1992 – 2002 at the national level as well as 16 states west of the Mississippi river. Prior to that, Strauss represented the insurance industry on public policy issues, focusing on workers compensation on the east coast and throughout the Midwest.

Strauss is a Certified Workers’ Compensation Professional (Michigan State University) and a Market Conduct Manager (IRES).

Strauss has taught workers compensation, written on and advocated for positive workers’ compensation changes throughout his career and is a regular speaker for the Association of Insurance Compliance Professionals. Strauss and his wife of thirty some odd years (she says they have been very odd years) are residents of Helena, MT and are involved with local charities, businesses and he is an active member of the National Ski Patrol.

Courtesy Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

NCSI Joins Business Coalition in Opposing COVID Presumption in Federal Legislation (Again) On March 14, 2022, NCSI joined a business coalition opposing the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ COVID-19 Compensation Act of 2021 (H.R. 3114). The bill would create a presumption of work-relatedness for COVID-19 illness for maritime employees covered by the U.S. Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (the Longshore Act).

The coalition opposing H.R. 3114 was organized by Douglas Holmes, President of the UWC – Strategic Services on Unemployment & Workers’ Compensation. In a letter addressed to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Education and Labor and to the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Mr. Holmes wrote on behalf of the group: We are writing to express opposition to the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ COVID-19 Compensation Act of 2021 (H.R. 3114).

Specifically, H.R. 3114 would establish a presumption of coverage and compensability under the Longshore Act for maritime workers who contract COVID-19 at any time between January 27, 2020 and January 27, 2023. [The bill] would create a

presumption that an employee who contracted COVID-19 is not required to show that the illness arose at work and provide medical proof of the illness.

Further, a no-fault workers’ compensation system is effective only if it is limited to illness and injury “arising out of and in the course of employment”. [The bill] would convert workers’ compensation from a system that provides benefits to workers suffering workplace injuries to a form of guaranteed income replacement for non-workers. Extending the presumption for almost three years, until January 27, 2023, is impossible to justify since employees are engaged in social activities outside of work.

It is therefore unreasonable to assume an individual must have contracted COVID-19 at work. In some cases, individuals have been working and continue to work from home in environments that are not within the control of the employer.

The coalition also argued that the United States Supreme Court in its recent majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA observed that: OSHA is charged with regulating “occupational hazards” and the safety and health of “employees” … Although COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID-19 can and does spread at homes, in schools, during sporting events and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life-simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock-would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.

For almost all non-federal employers and employees, workers’ compensation is a creature of state law. Most states have not adopted any COVID-19 presumption legislation, although there have been bills presented in a number of jurisdictions. The concern with H.R. 3114 is that the bill would encourage COVID-19 presumptions without limitation or scientific basis. In those few states where a legislative presumption has been created, the presumption was narrowly tailored. For example, some states have extended the presumption only to first responders or healthcare providers, those workers who are demonstrably in the line of encountering or treating COVID-19 patients. Other states have placed similar restrictions on allowance or compensation issues.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE...

Q1 2022 / 9

Most states have within their workers’ compensation laws provisions for awarding compensation and benefits to those who contract an illness at work, even where the illness is commonly seen in the public such as tuberculosis, Legionnaire’s disease, cumulative trauma disorder and the like. We remember that Justice Louis Brandeis referred to the states as laboratories of social democracy: It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system, that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

In other words, and in our context, the issues that arise under workers’ compensation are not unique to one state; we are the better for having 50 potential ways to address such challenges. State legislatures have long wrestled with identifying those

diseases that are common to the public but are yet sufficiently tied to a particular occupation so as to be properly compensated under the provisions of the states’ workers’ compensation laws. For example, the original Ohio statute included a schedule of covered diseases that were so plainly workrelated that to deny compensation to a victim of the disease would have been grossly inconsistent with the purpose of the law. Those scheduled diseases included anthrax, glanders, coal miner’s pneumoconiosis, baker’s asthma, etc.

To hear the name of the disease is to know what the afflicted worker did for a living. The Ohio General Assembly had the wisdom to recognize that it could not identify every disease that should be compensated under the workers’ compensation laws and so it created a “catch-all” description in the Revised Code.

R.C. 4123.68 (BB) All other occupational diseases: A disease peculiar to a particular industrial process, trade or occupation and to which an employee is not ordinarily subjected to or exposed outside of or away from his employment.

Other states have similar provisions for compensating commonly seen diseases as occupational diseases for certain classifications of workers. Those statutory provisions uniformly include safeguards or gatekeepers to ensure that the illness or disorder that is being compensated is a work-related disability and not something that is a general malady of life. Congress would do well to look at how the various states have addressed such issues instead of creating an ill-considered presumption that may remove work-relatedness from the compensation equation.

1 0 / NATIO NAL CO UNCI L OF S E LF -I N S U R E RS’

NCSI 2022 Annual Meeting and Conference - We Are So Excited to be Back and in Person this Year!

Learn More!

As in years past the conference will feature a blend of medical, administrative and legal topics.

A copy of the program agenda will appear on the NCSI website later. The NCSI Annual Conference has proven to be an important opportunity to renew friendships, make new business acquaintances, network and enjoy the company of workers’ compensation professionals. We can’t wait to see you in Scottsdale!

Join your colleagues June 12 - 15, 2022 at the Hyatt Regency Scottsdale Resort & Spa at Gainey Ranch in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Hyatt Regency Scottsdale Resort and Spa at Gainey Ranch 7500 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd. Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Rate: $199 Deadline to Book: May 21, 2022

Q1 2022 / 11