Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 17
04/30/2007 03:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB197 | |
| HCR8 | |
| HB200 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HCR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 197 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 200-WORKERS' COMP: DISEASE PRESUMPTION 4:05:26 PM CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 200, "An Act relating to the presumption of coverage for a workers' compensation claim for disability as a result of certain diseases for certain occupations." 4:05:39 PM KELLY HUBER, Staff to Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Dahlstrom, prime sponsor, described the changes made in the proposed committee substitute (CS), labeled 25-LS0748\C, Bannister/Bailey, 4/30/07, [although no motion had been made to bring Version C before the committee as a working document]. She noted that there had been some confusion as to whether or not HB 200 was a "mandatory bill." She explained that Legislative Legal and Research Services drafted the bill and did not believe that "the language in it made this mandatory." For purposes of clarification, language was added to Version C on page 3, [subsection (e)], which read as follows: (e) The provisions of (c)(2) of this section may not be interpreted to require a municipality or other employer of fire fighters covered under AS 23.30.243, peace officers, or emergency medical and rescue personnel, including a municipality or other organization that uses volunteers, to provide a qualifying medical examination. MS. HUBER, in response to a question from Representative Neuman, explained that if a municipality decides not to have, for example, everyone in its fire department take the "prequalifying" exam, then "nobody is going to be covered." REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX asked, "Doesn't that gut the whole bill?" MS. HUBER said the original bill language shows that "the department already had to determine to give the qualifying exams." REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX offered her understanding that there is a letter from the Municipality of Anchorage opposing the bill. She asked, "If we do this, I mean, it sounds nice, but what are we really doing?" REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if an incoming firefighter told that he/she must have an exam in order to get presumptive coverage could opt to get that exam independently. MS. HUBER revealed that she, too, had had the same thought; however, the sponsor was told by Legislative Legal and Research Services that that would not be allowed under the language of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded that she concurs with Representative LeDoux regarding the futility of passing the bill [as it would be amended through Version C]. MS. HUBER replied, "... The sponsor wanted to bring it forward, but she likes the original bill, as well." REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that the Anchorage Fire Department has a required annual exam. He asked if that would count. MS. HUBER said the qualifying exam noted in the bill would be determined by regulations; therefore, it would be unknown until those regulations were written whether or not the Anchorage Fire Department's exam would qualify. MS. HUBER, in response to Representative LeDoux, pointed to language on page 3, line 18, of Version C, also found in the original bill version [on the same page and line numbers], which read: "personnel who were given a qualifying medical examination". She stated, "The idea, then, is therefore somebody would have had to okay the exam. So, therefore, the municipality or the governing entity would have had to approve it. And so, that's how Legislative Legal [and Research Services] is reading this." REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX exclaimed, "Even in the old version nobody's going to be required to do anything." MS. HUBER answered that's correct. She indicated that Version C simply clarifies the bottom line intent that the city or the governing entity or the fire department would determine whether or not it wants its personnel included under the presumptive clause. REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX asked Ms. Huber what the sponsor would think about "taking that out," either in the original bill or Version C. MS. HUBER replied, "We'd have to make sure we're leaving in the exam part." She indicated that with a conceptual amendment, "we would let it be the committee's decision at that point." 4:12:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN surmised that the sponsor is offering Version C as a means to achieve uniformity in the bill, so that all departments would be working under the same guidelines. MS. HUBER reiterated that the reason for Version C is to clarify "whether or not this bill was going to be mandatory." In response to Representative Neuman, she confirmed there is no difference between the original bill and Version C, other than the added language in Version C, which clarifies what was already in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said he is getting mixed signals. He explained that he cannot understand Ms. Huber's previous statement that the sponsor prefers the original bill version to Version C if there is essentially no difference between the two. MS. HUBER said the sponsor does not have a problem with Version C; "she did not want people to misunderstand what the bill is doing." She added, "But if Representative LeDoux's idea goes forward, ... I don't know that she would have a problem with it." REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked, "Don't all fire departments require an exam anyhow?" REPRESENTATIVE GATTO recalled that when he first began work as a fire fighter, there was probably a requirement for "some evidence of an exam." He said later on there were annual medical examinations, which included tests of the heart and lungs. He shared his understanding that the bill does not clarify that it must be an approved exam. He stated that he has had repeated difficulties with the municipality, whether in regard to retirement and benefits or medical plans. He said, "And that's why I'm kind of looking at this language right here; I think we have met the requirements here by going to your doctor or the first time the department gives you an exam, or at least pays for the exam." CHAIR OLSON stated his belief that it is the intent of the sponsor that Version C would garner more support as the bill moved forward. MS. HUBER said she thinks the bill has a great deal of support already "for the presumption ... for these particular rescue workers." She reiterated that the sponsor did not want anyone to be misled. She directed attention to page 3, line 28, of Version C [line 24 of the original bill], which read: "(f) The department shall, by regulation, define". On ensuing lines, she noted, the language read, "the type and extent of the medical examination that is needed to eliminate evidence". She asked Representative Gatto, "Do you think that the ones that you're talking about will do that in the end?" REPRESENTATIVE GATTO responded: ... It was very specific which exams were done and how they were done. And we followed it as we followed a menu. So, if that's not in regulation, I'd be surprised, because you had to do it or you couldn't work. So, it must have been in regulation, but I'm really trying to second guess that. The committee took a brief at-ease. REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX stated, "Yes, he makes a very good argument that could be used in a court of law, that even if they don't give a specific test, ... you're still under the purview of this bill and ... the presumption applies." However, she suggested that the committee decide exactly how it wants the bill to read, rather than leaving any ambiguity. She asked, "When this bill passed last year, did this have a voluntary component to it?" MS. HUBER offered her understanding that "the language was the way it was in the bill before you on Friday," other than some unrelated changes. She added, "But everything else, I believe, is the same as what passed the House last year." REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER confessed to having become confused. She said she had understood the intent of the bill was to provide coverage for a list of presumptive illnesses. She added, "And if we make it optional, then we've done nothing at all, because the biggest fire fighter employer has already said the world will fall in if we do it." REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN cautioned the committee's making extensive changes after looking at the bill for a limited amount of time. He said he would prefer to support the wishes of the sponsor. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said it is important to remember that the proposed legislation really addresses workers' compensation. Statistically, he relayed, fire fighters die at an earlier age. He said, "The concept is: we think it's job related. And this bill says we don't think it anymore - we're just going to say it's job related. And that's that presumptive clause." He reiterated that he does not think municipalities are always helpful, and he stated that he thinks the fire fighters are asking for helping through HB 200. He said he agrees with the fire fighters. 4:22:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX said she wants to give the help that is deserved to fire fighters, but she is afraid that either of the two versions of the bill "have a hole so big that you could drive a fire truck through it." MS. HUBER asked Representative LeDoux if she would be amenable to the idea of allowing the original bill out of committee, with the promise of the sponsor working with the chair of the next committee of referral to address Representative LeDoux's concerns. REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX said, "Absolutely." MS. HUBER said she would also be willing to address Representative Gatto's expressed concerns regarding the regulations and how that relates to the testing. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said he thinks the sponsor offered Version C in response to committee concerns, and he would like to honor her request by proposing Version C. 4:24:21 PM CHAIR OLSON, after ascertaining that there was no one to testify, closed public testimony. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 200, Version 25-LS0748\C, Bannister/Bailey, 4/30/07, as the working document. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Ramras, Neuman, and Olson voted in favor of the motion to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 200, Version 25-LS0748\C, Bannister/Bailey, 4/30/07, as the working document. Representatives Gatto, LeDoux, and Gardner voted against it. Therefore, the motion failed by a vote of 3-3. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO shared his vivid memories of his early years with the fire department, when he visited retired fire fighters who were surviving with respirators, living in cheap trailers, trying to get by on their retirement income, and not getting much help. The desire was there to help these retired fire fighters, but it was not possible, because "we needed the approval of the department to give away money that we had in our retirement account." He said it is time to make up for those days, which is why he supports HB 200. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she also supports the bill, but she is troubled by its ambiguity regarding the issue of whether or not it would be mandatory. She expressed her wish that by the time the bill comes to the House floor, the intent is clear regarding the listed diseases, "the presumption that they're work related," and the intent to provide coverage for them. 4:26:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX said she agrees with Representative Gardner, and she expressed her desire to see her work with the bill sponsor to tighten up the language of the bill so that a municipality could not get out of providing coverage simply because it decides not to give the examination. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO suggested making the exam mandatory. REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX responded, "Make either the exam mandatory or, if they decide not to give the exam, then it's their tough luck - that they have the option of giving the exam." REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said, "It counts as if they gave it." MS. HUBER renewed her promise to work on these issues with the bill sponsor before the bill's hearing in the next committee of referral. 4:27:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to report HB 200 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. CHAIR OLSON objected. 4:29:16 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner, Gatto, Neuman, and LeDoux voted in favor of moving HB 200 out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes. Representatives Ramras, and Olson voted against it. Therefore, HB 200 was reported out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN explained that he voted yes because although he had supported Version M because of its clarification, he did not want to hold up the bill in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|