We pay for follow-up workers' comp appointments that occur during work hours. 

I have had one DOT positive result that was referred to the SAP.  If I remember correctly, the employee was responsible for the cost of the SAP, and he used his HSA funds to pay for it. In this case, we put the employee on FMLA and followed our procedure which is the employee may use their leave time until it is gone, and the remainder would be unpaid. The follow-up testing was during work hours and was paid time. 

I'd love to learn more, please include me in any further discussions either virtually or in person. Thanks!

Great questions and points of conversation, Kami.

If others are interested, we may want to organize a virtual meeting to discuss this bill and all its facets.

We do the same as Shauna mentions in regard to workers' comp appointments.

Great minds - let's talk through HB 130 (I'm guessing the Governor is going to sign it)

We currently don't compensate employees for time they spend going to work comp appointments after the initial appointment (physical therapy, further testing, etc).  Does anyone else?  Preliminary reading of this bill, it doesn't look like it exempts these cases so I'm curious what you are all thinking on this issue in light of the bill.  

Drug Testing.  What is everyone doing for DOT-required SAP referrals following positive exams?  Paid/Unpaid time and who is paying for the cost of the evaluation?  Then, if we decide to keep an employee subject to their compliance with the SAP recommendation, what other agencies do for required follow-up testing subject to the terms and conditions recommended by a Substance Abuse Professional (we follow same procedure as DOT for our safety-sensitive).  We've had these tests be at their own expense but now I'm rethinking how this will be impacted by this new code.    

The other topic we thought of was HEP B immunizations.  We have to "offer," but don't require that for our bloodborne pathogens exposure control plan covered positions (like lifeguards, police, and fire).  What's everyone else thinking?  Would that time be non-compensable if they do want to get immunized or do the titer testing?  We're already required to pay for it if they are uninsured.

DOT medical cards or police vision screening.  If we have a provider they can go to that will bill us, but the employee would rather see their own medical provider for personal reasons, do you think this would change the requirements of HB 130?

So many questions on this one.  

I sent a direct email to all of the Chapter about this bill. Rep. Gwynn was open to changes to exclude fitness for duty tests for off-duty injuries. He shared with me that his purpose of this bill is to correct an issue of a "few bad actors" that make employees pay upfront or make employees pay for the tests themselves. He is not trying to place a significant burden on employers, he just wants the issues corrected. 

Bill Link: https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/static/HB0130.html

Summary: This bill modifies the general labor code as a clean up bill. Employers cannot charge prospective or current employees the expenses of medical examination, including phsyical exams and drug testing. A reimbursement arrangement is also prohibited. 

Upon receipt of a violation, the Division of Antidiscriminiation and Labor will investigate and could incur penaty and fines. It is proposed a person that violates the provisions is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. 

David's Personal take: I don't see big changes from the original code. It was already prohibited for employers to change medical fees of employees or prospective employees.  The new language is more clear and follows the patterns of other code sections. It looks like the penalties increase or allow different penalty options for the Labor Commission. 

*General Disclaimer: David's take is is his own personal opinion and is non legal binding nor is the official position of the Chapter.