Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/18/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR13 | |
| HB320 | |
| HB65 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 320 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 320
An Act relating to certification of search and rescue
personnel and organizations; requiring certain search
and rescue personnel to be considered state employees
for purposes of workers' compensation coverage; and
allowing municipalities to elect to provide workers'
compensation insurance coverage for search and rescue
personnel.
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, STAFF, CO-CHAIR KEVIN MEYER, addressed
the philosophy behind the bill and some of the changes made
during the committee process. He stated that the concern
had been brought forward by a constituent involved in the
Search and Rescue community.
He pointed out that Section 3, AS 18.60.125, addresses civil
immunity and provides the essence of the bill. Through the
workers compensation statute, an employee and employer come
to an agreement that in an injury, the workers comp system
would be used rather than going to court to deliver benefits
to the injured employee.
At present time, Search & Rescue volunteers are expressly
prohibited from suing the State under existing statute,
indicated as civil immunity located in Section 3. There has
been a voluntary policy issued through the Division of Risk
Management is not consistent; it is a secondary policy. He
emphasized that these are a group of volunteers, whom the
State relies upon to deliver search & rescue services and
assist Alaska State Troopers for statewide outdoor
activities. He noted that the sponsor believes that this
group of people are basically State employees for the
purposes of those missions.
Mr. Pawlowski mentioned other groups who receive workers
compensation that are also volunteers such as the volunteer
fire fighters, volunteer emergency medical attendants and
emergency relief workers. They are all considered State
employees for the purposes of workers compensation. When
considering the volunteer needs, HB 320 was drafted to
provide workers with compensation coverage.
Mr. Pawlowski acknowledged that there have been few
accidents in the history of Search & Rescue in the State.
The bill attempts to be proactive, in the past six years,
more than 2,300 people have been saved by the efforts of
search and rescue volunteers, assisting State Troopers.
2:20:03 PM
Mr. Pawlowski highlighted changes made to the bill during
the committee process. The requirement for certification
and registration was removed and some volunteers did not
like that. A fiscal note was included, requiring one
statewide full time employee to work with the volunteers in
coordinating the effort.
Mr. Pawlowski summarized, HB 320 provides coverage to a
group of people in the State, who perform an important and
valuable service and guarantees they are covered in case of
an accident. Certification has been removed and authority
for training was added.
2:21:17 PM
Representative Gara asked if a person were entitled to
workers compensation insurance, would they loose their
ability to be able to sue in Court. He understood that if
the injured person did not have workers comp insurance, they
could sue. He asked if there was 100% certainty that only
those that receive State workers comp insurance would not be
entitled to sue.
Mr. Pawlowski explained that in existing statute; civil
immunity already exists. The legislation provides coverage
currently unavailable in existing statute. He requested
that the Department of Labor and Workforce Development
address the issue.
Representative Gara requested the classification of those
who would not be able to sue in Court.
2:23:08 PM
Representative Gara did not want to see a circumstance,
where someone doing search and rescue work and not covered
by insurance, if they were injured, then not being allowed
to sue. Mr. Pawlowski replied that in existing law, it is
not an either/or situation. Right now, there is no coverage
and there is prohibition from suing so the civil immunity
statute would remain in place and they would receive
coverage.
Representative Gara asked if the bill was passed, would all
volunteers doing search and rescue receive either coverage
by insurance or the ability to sue. Mr. Pawlowski addressed
two areas where a person does not have coverage under the
proposed bill:
· A person performing a Search & Rescue outside the
State Troopers with no authorization for the
mission; and/or
· When the request is drawn-up by a municipality, as
indicated in Section I.
He acknowledged there are places where a volunteer would not
be covered and did not know how civil immunity would be
affected.
2:25:17 PM
Representative Gara maintained that if the intent was to
protect the search & rescue workers, language could be added
to clarify that the State have immunity to the extent that
they provide insurance to that person. If the State has not
provided insurance to the volunteer, they have no immunity.
Mr. Pawlowski referenced that observation to the Division of
Risk Management.
2:26:11 PM
Co-Chair Meyer hoped the legislature would make the statute
consistent with the voluntary Emergency Medical Technician's
(EMT) workers compensation coverage.
Representative Kelly inquired how many other states offer
the coverage. Mr. Pawlowski did not know, but offered to
check. In Title 23, there are extensive lists of statewide
groups that receive compensation. Some sections of the bill
were taken directly from AS 23.32.44, the emergency disaster
relief volunteers.
2:27:53 PM
CHARLES SPRINGER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALASKA
SEARCH & RESCUE, ANCHORAGE, testified in support of the
legislation which will provide basic protection for
volunteers who put their health and safety at risk in
volunteer efforts for the State.
2:29:26 PM
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
2:29:36 PM
BRAD THOMPSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, advised that the Division
administers the State of Alaska's self insurance program,
which extends to State agencies and employees. HB 320 would
create a statutory employee for a search and rescue
participant under the direction of the Department of Public
Safety. Mr. Thompson pointed out that it would be a new
extension of the workers compensation benefit for the member
under the direction of that Department. It has been the
policy and practice to extend to those participants that
volunteer for State service under a similar provision. The
volunteer is not eligible to receive the workers
compensation benefit but there has been a service agreement
which extends to the participant a similar benefit paid only
if there is no other source of coverage. In the proposed
statute, it would be noted that there is a service agreement
that medical costs be paid. The proposed statute makes the
State primarily responsible to pay medical indemnity for
wage loss based on the average weekly wage.
2:31:24 PM
Representative Gara wanted a guarantee that those persons
who do search & rescue work are protected in either their
ability to go to Court to get the coverage or to get
insurance. He asked if there could be any gap, to any
person that volunteers for search and rescue efforts. Mr.
Thompson reiterated that the bill creates a statutory
benefit of workers compensation; the State is self-insured.
It would pay the same benefit to those participants that it
would to a State employee with the benefit based on an
average weekly wage. Existing civil immunity language does
address the State & municipality's exposure for liability
claims from Search & Rescue missions and extends to those
individuals.
2:32:43 PM
Representative Gara advised that in the general workmen's
comp language, if an individual is not covered, there would
be no benefit from immunity; it would be one or the other.
He asked if there would be objection from the Administration
to guarantee that every person doing search and rescue work,
has one or the other option. Mr. Thompson argued that there
is no direct action and that the employee has the exclusive
remedy listed under the workers compensation law. There is
no direct-action legal ability to pursue a civil action
against an employer. The present civil immunity statute
addresses participants and third parties. The proposed
benefit enacts a practice, which provides commitment to pay
workers compensation and does not change the existing civil
immunity. If the volunteers were under the control of the
Department of Public Safety, they would be paid the benefit.
The State is self-insured and would make that benefit
payment.
2:34:24 PM
Representative Gara asked the recourse under the bill, if
the State or municipality did not provide insurance for the
individual if that person was hurt. Mr. Thompson explained
that if the volunteer was acting under the control of State
authority, they would be covered; if a municipality offered
their own Search & Rescue, not under the direction of the
Department of Public Safety, they would have the option to
extend similar statutory benefits to those responders. If
they choose not to offer it, there could be a situation in
which the volunteer would be without compensated benefits.
Representative Gara asked if they would be without the right
to get a remedy in Court. Mr. Thompson said yes.
Representative Gara asked if Mr. Thompson would support
language added to address that. Mr. Thompson said he was
not sure that tweaking the civil liability statute should be
undertaken.
2:36:42 PM
Representative Gara inquired how it could be fair for
someone risking their life to save another not receive
coverage either through insurance or court. Mr. Thompson
responded that if working for the State through the
Department of Public Safety, the volunteer would not be
placed in that dilemma. However, it is the municipality's
choice not to extend the statutory benefit. He could not
respond for them. Co-Chair Meyer agreed.
2:37:38 PM
Mr. Thompson was not aware of other states offering the
extension. He explained the difference between what is
being offered and what is being proposed and that the State
would assume out of pocket payment; otherwise, there would
be no covered medical.
2:38:33 PM
Representative Kelly inquired if a volunteer was hurt while
performing the operations, would the State be paying them
for the next two years. Mr. Thompson explained that the
benefit would be based on the Alaska average weekly wage,
whether prior earnings or not.
Vice-Chair Stoltze suggested that HB 320 would increase the
number of people with coverage. The bill provides a
tangible benefit to volunteers. He spoke in support of the
bill as it increases benefit and coverage to more volunteers
that help with statewide safety.
2:40:58 PM
Representative Thomas provided a hypothetical situation
based on personal experience when responding to emergency
situations. He wondered if there would be an authorization
period required by the bill.
Representative Kelly observed that the current situation
allows for lawsuits; he wondered how many of the volunteers
have sued over the past five years. Mr. Thompson reported
that the State has received no such civil action claims.
Representative Kelly asked if small claims payments could
involve paying wages in the old scenario. Mr. Thompson
replied that the State would have paid wage replacement
based on the minimum comp rate available at that time.
Representative Gara noted frustration with the Department's
testimony. He reiterated that the volunteer is not allowed
to sue under current law, which is why almost no one has
sued. He emphasized his frustration that the Department has
not provided "straight answers" to the questions being
asked.
2:45:26 PM
Mr. Pawlowski addressed concerns voiced by Representative
Gara. He commented that Mr. Thompson did explain the
municipal exception well. In drafting the bill and working
with the communities, the intent was not to create an
unfunded mandate where the community would be required to
add coverage. Changing the civil liability statute places a
municipality at risk for being sued. He recommended hearing
testimony from Kevin Smith of the Municipal League regarding
the joint insurance arrangement discussing types of
liabilities the communities could be at risk for. If the
bill passes, concerns voiced by Representative Gara would be
mute.
Representative Gara understood the intent was to expand
coverage to people barred from suing. If the municipalities
have concerns, it would not surprise him. He believed that
the work of the Division of Risk Management should be to
protect the State from liability, not to provide
remedies. He wanted the loopholes addressed.
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that the municipalities have the
option to either opt in or out.
2:48:16 PM
LIEUTENANT RODNEY DIAL, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
DEPUTY COMMANDER, DIVISION OF ALASKA STATE TROOPERS,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, spoke to the fiscal note. He
requested one additional full time position to oversee and
provide training for the program.
Representative Hawker recommended the fiscal note be zeroed
out. He acknowledged that the Department of Public Safety
is understaffed; however, HB 320 is not the vehicle for
solving those problems. Lt. Dial pointed out the bill
requires required oversight, training and management for
over 1,000 statewide volunteers. Representative Hawker
disagreed.
Representative Kelly aligned with comments made by
Representative Hawker, noting the hidden expenses contained
in the note.
2:54:06 PM
In response to Representative Kelly, Mr. Pawlowski pointed
out the expanded responsibilities of the Commissioner and
different from the version submitted by the House Labor and
Commerce Committee. Section 1 does not requiring it and the
language provides coverage for the authorized training
mission. The Department envisions some sort of training
coordination within the communities will need to happen. He
added, the certification provisions had been removed.
Representative Gara agreed that the cost to the State should
be less than zero, but acknowledged that there could be
unanticipated expenses. Mr. Thompson explained that Risk
Management is funded by inter-agency receipts. Cost of risk
is based on:
· The cost of claims; and
· Exposure.
The actual costs generated from the claims are collected for
a 5-year window and then proportionately shared to each
department. The portfolio of risk changes every year. The
revision could increase a portion of it. Each year when the
Risk Management budget request is prepared, all payments are
taken into account.
2:57:49 PM
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1. (Copy on File).
Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Page 3, Line 17, following "wage" would delete "but the
gross weekly earnings for calculating compensation may
not be less than the minimum wage computed based on 40
hours of work a week".
Mr. Pawlowski explained the intent of the Amendment to
provide clarification.
Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:59:13 PM
Representative Hawker asked the decision on the Department
of Public Safety fiscal note. Co-Chair Meyer recommended
cutting it in half.
Representative Hawker MOVED to zero out the note. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Representative Hawker restated the request urging that more
in depth discussion occur on the Department of Public Safety
operating budget.
Co-Chair Meyer suggested consideration of an indeterminate
note. Representative Hawker emphasized zeroing out the
note, suggesting that the Division of Risk Management may or
may not carry a consequence.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, the fiscal note was zeroed out for the
Department of Public Safety and an indeterminate note for
Division of Risk Management.
3:02:03 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CS HB 320 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Kelly OBJECTED.
Representative Kelly indicated his concern about moving away
from a volunteer system throughout the State. He restated
that it could end up costing a lot more. He emphasized that
the current system works well.
Representative Kelly WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Gara OBJECTED, but disagreed with comments
made by Representative Kelly. He maintained if there was
universal health care, the State would not need the bill.
Representative Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS HB 320 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero note #1 by the Department
of Administration, indeterminate note #2 by the Department
of Administration and a new fiscal note by the House Finance
Committee.
3:05:38 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|