01/29/2024 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB170 | |
| HB88 | |
| HB63 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 63 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 29, 2024
1:02 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sarah Vance, Chair
Representative Jamie Allard, Vice Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Jesse Sumner (via Microsoft Teams)
Representative Andrew Gray
Representative Cliff Groh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 170
"An Act relating to the misuse of an official position."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 88
"An Act relating to work quotas for employees at warehouse
distribution centers; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 63
"An Act repealing the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission;
relating to decisions and orders of the Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission; relating to superior court jurisdiction over
appeals from Alaska Workers' Compensation Board decisions;
repealing Rules 201.1, 401.1, and 501.1, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure, and amending Rules 202(a), 204(a) - (c),
210(e), 601(b), 602(c) and (h), and 603(a), Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 170
SHORT TITLE: MISUSE OF PUB. OFFICER OFFICIAL POSITION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CRONK
04/24/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/24/23 (H) JUD
01/29/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 88
SHORT TITLE: WAREHOUSE WORK QUOTAS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAUSCHER
02/27/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/27/23 (H) L&C, JUD
03/29/23 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/29/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/23 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/10/23 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
04/10/23 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/12/23 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
04/12/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/23 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/14/23 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
04/14/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/14/23 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/17/23 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
04/17/23 (H) Moved CSHB 88(L&C) Out of Committee
04/17/23 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/19/23 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 3DP 4NR
04/19/23 (H) DP: FIELDS, CARRICK, SUMNER
04/19/23 (H) NR: SADDLER, PRAX, WRIGHT, RUFFRIDGE
01/29/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 63
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL WORKERS' COMP APPEALS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAUSCHER
02/06/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/23 (H) L&C, JUD
02/17/23 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
02/17/23 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/23 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/03/23 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/03/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/03/23 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/15/23 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/15/23 (H) Moved HB 63 Out of Committee
03/15/23 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/17/23 (H) L&C RPT 2DP 5NR
03/17/23 (H) DP: WRIGHT, SADDLER
03/17/23 (H) NR: RUFFRIDGE, PRAX, FIELDS, CARRICK,
SUMNER
03/17/23 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/17/23 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/20/23 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
03/20/23 (H) BILL REPRINTED
01/29/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 170, as the prime sponsor.
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff
Representative Mike Cronk
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 170, on behalf of
Representative Cronk, prime sponsor.
NOAH KLEIN, Attorney
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
170.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSHB 88(L&C), as the prime
sponsor; presented HB 63, as the prime sponsor.
RYAN MCKEE, Staff
Representative George Rauscher
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for CSHB
88(L&C), on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime sponsor;
presented the sectional analysis and PowerPoint for HB 63, on
behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime sponsor.
PATRICK FITZGERALD, Political Coordinator
Alaska Teamsters Union
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on CSHB 88(L&C).
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:41 PM
CHAIR VANCE called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives C. Johnson,
Sumner (via Microsoft Teams), Gray, Groh, Allard, and Vance were
present at the call to order. Representative Carpenter arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 170-MISUSE OF PUB. OFFICER OFFICIAL POSITION
1:03:48 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 170, "An Act relating to the misuse of an
official position."
1:04:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, presented HB 170. He shared the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
There's an old saying "An ounce of prevention is worth
a pound of cure."
Like our existing ethics laws, House Bill 170 is all
about prevention.
It is intended to prevent any public official who
might be tempted to personally use their position or
influence to punish or put pressure on a person or
business not to do so.
This addition to the existing ethics statutes
expressly prohibits such punitive action by a public
official and makes it punishable under existing ethic
act provisions.
Providing this protection will increase public
confidence knowing it is unlawful for public officials
to use their authority for personal reasons.
1:05:08 PM
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff, Representative Mike Cronk, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Cronk, prime sponsor,
further contextualized the proposed legislation. He stated,
"When a person who has the ability to regulate or put into
effect policy, goes beyond what the public purpose for doing
that is, persons and businesses can be severely damaged." The
purpose of the bill, he explained, was to protect people from
their government, adding that it was the first legislation in
the country to enact legal restraints to prevent a policy person
from taking punitive action against a person for reasons other
than appropriating state business. He noted that the bill
language was an extension of the Ethics Act. Penalties for
violating the law range from a $5,000 fine to a misdemeanor.
CHAIR VANCE sought questions from committee members.
1:08:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked for the definition of "justifiable
public purpose."
MR. STANCLIFF, referencing page 2, lines 15-16, defined the
phrase as a purpose related to the best interests of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked for an example of a case in which this
law would be used.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK recounted a scenario in which a government
official misled a constituent, resulting in the constituent's
inability to finance a piece of equipment for his business.
1:11:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared his understanding that should the
bill pass, it would no longer be legal to send misleading,
misinformed information as a department official.
MR. STANCLIFF said the bill would allow a guilty person to be
held responsible and charged with a fine or a misdemeanor. From
the constituent's perspective, he said, the letter from the
state official was retaliatory behavior for opposing a piece of
legislation that the division was advocating for.
1:14:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked, in terms of "justifiable public
purpose," whether flipping a coin or consulting a magic eight
ball on a decision would be considered unethical or whether
malign intent was necessary.
MR. STANCLIFF responded that the evidence would need to be more
substantial.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked whether proof of [malintent] was
required for criminal prosecution or whether inconsistent
decisions would suffice.
MR. STANCLIFF shared his understanding that "the weight would be
pretty heavy" to bring forth a misdemeanor conviction. He added
that intent was factor.
1:17:32 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:18:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked for the legal definition of
"misleading."
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK did not know the answer.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD requested the definition of "public
officer." In addition, she posed a scenario in which an elected
official consistently recuses himself/herself from votes due to
a conflict of interest. The elected official sits on a
nonprofit "body" that distributes funds into the individual's
nonprofit from which his/her salary is drawn. She asked whether
the bill would cover that scenario.
MR. STANCLIFF said, "It very well could." He explained that the
bill would come into play when a public official misuses his/her
power.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH emphasized the need for legal advice. He
referenced the definition of "justifiable public purpose" and
asked Mr. Klein to address the question of intent and
termination of evidence.
1:24:00 PM
NOAH KLEIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency (LAA), said he did not understand the question in
the context of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH summarized the scenario that inspired the
bill.
1:25:16 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:26:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD expressed concern that the bill sponsor
was being impugned.
CHAIR VANCE asked the bill sponsor to clarify the scenario that
inspired the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK restated the scenario as follows:
A person was asking for something that he previously
had gotten through the state and a person that works
for the state figured out a way around and denied him
that. And through that process, we realize that there
... was a lot of false statements for the denial. And
we feel justified in bringing this bill forward
because that person felt that because he opposed some
prior legislation that this was punishment for him
being very vocal against it.
1:28:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked Mr. Klein to describe the role of
intent in the proposed legislation and how it would be
determined.
1:29:05 PM
MR. KLEIN stated that the prohibition in the proposed
legislation did not speak to a specific mental state or intent
of the public official. Instead, it was a prohibition on doing
something that does not meet the standard of a "justifiable
public purpose," as defined in the act.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether the bill would allow a citizen to take
action against a state-employed plow for what's perceived to be
a punitive act of piling large amounts of snow in his/her
driveway unless a "justifiable public purpose" was displayed.
MR. STANCLIFF said he had a list of complaints involving
questionable decisions that were much more serious than snow in
a yard. He reiterated that the bill would expand upon the
existing Ethics Act.
1:34:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER shared his understanding that the bill
would create a "strict liability crime" and asked whether that
was the intent.
MR. KLEIN said the bill would be making, in addition to the
Ethics Act, a paragraph that would be interpreted by the
attorney general and the personnel board. Although there was no
express intent or mental state requirement, the lack of a
"justifiable public purpose" would need to be determined by the
executive branch.
1:36:38 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 170 would be held over.
1:37:11 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:37 p.m. to 1:37 p.m.
HB 88-WAREHOUSE WORK QUOTAS
1:39:53 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 88, "An Act relating to work quotas for employees
at warehouse distribution centers; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 88(L&C).]
1:40:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, presented CSHB 88(L&C). He shared the sponsor
statement [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows:
House Bill 88 Warehouse Worker Protection Act is
designed to provide transparency for warehouse and
logistic workers when they agree to a pay scale based
on a quota or production goal. HB 88 is also designed
to provide protections for workers against
counterproductive methods employers miss the mark on,
to speed up production and save on costs.
Alaska is one of the most bountiful states in the
country with its salmon runs, wild game, and natural
resources. The abundance of the state is a blessing
but there is still a need for supplies and goods to be
imported, stored, and delivered. The workers who
manage the logistics of these imports are the unsung
heroes of Alaskan food security and supply chain. With
over 90% of food coming from outside Alaska, these
workers are the lifeline to keep the state
operational. Warehouse and logistic workers face many
challenges in the workplace, HB 88 will allow workers
to focus on delivering goods and maintaining a healthy
supply chain while also ensuring they are able to work
in a safe environment where employers don't encourage
speed over safety.
1:42:11 PM
RYAN MCKEE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime
sponsor, presented the sectional analysis for CSHB 88(L&C)
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Sec 1. Amends AS 23.10 by adding new sections
Article 9. Work Quotas at Warehouse Distribution
centers.
Section 23.10.700. - Specifies what types of
employers the newly added
sections AS 23.10.700-23.10.725 apply to.
Specifically, 100 or more employees at a single
warehouse distribution center, or 1,000 or more
employees at one or more warehouse distribution
centers in the state.
Section 23.10.705. - Specifies when an employer
that is subject to AS 23.10.700 23.10.725 needs
to provide a written description of each quota
that applies to the employee. It further
describes what needs to be included in that
written quota description.
Section 23.10.710. States what specifically an
employer is not allowed to require in order for
employees to meet quota expectations.
Section 23.10.715. States that a current or
former employee may request, orally or in writing
a request for a quota description. And specifies
what needs to be included in the request as well
as a timeline for when an employee will receive
the requested description.
Section 23.10.720. States that an employee may
seek an injunction in the superior court to
enjoying an employer violating AS 23.10.700-
23.10.715.
Section 23.10.725. Provides definitions for
terms listed in the above language.
Sec 2. Sets an effective date of January 1st, 2025.
CHAIR VANCE opened invited testimony.
1:44:23 PM
PATRICK FITZGERALD, Political Coordinator, Alaska Teamsters
Union, gave invited testimony during the hearing on CSHB
88(L&C). He stated that the bill would add to statute
protections for warehouse and logistic workers to curb predatory
practices that come with a quota-based warehouse job. The
legislation would allow these employees to access their work
speed data, and to advocate for themselves when the quota is
changed. He argued that access to the data would allow for more
efficient production and would bring solutions to problems
regarding retention and turnover; transparency; and better
understanding of operations. He urged legislators to protect
warehouse workers by passing CSHB 88(L&C).
CHAIR VANCE sought questions from committee members.
1:46:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY questioned the increase from 100 to 200
workers.
MR. MCKEE explained that the sponsor wanted to focus on larger
warehouse groups and ensure that small businesses were excluded
to avoid unintended consequences.
1:47:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD shared an example of a bank employee whose
quota was increased. She asked whether the purpose of the bill
was to regulate businesses and make them implement these changes
to avoid being sued by workers who oppose quota increases.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said Representative Allard had phrased
the bill in a light that did not accurately reflect the bill's
intent. He shared a personal anecdote and opined that workers
should not need to "drop [dead]" in order to earn a salary
because quotas have been raised beyond the expectations
expressed at the time of hire.
1:51:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked why a representative from the union
was testifying unless the goal was to unionize.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER contended that the bill resonated with
him because of his personal background. He clarified that the
goal was not to unionize, adding that, as a legislator, he was
trying to do something that would benefit the workers in Alaska.
MR. FITZGERALD, in response to Representative Allard, explained
that in a quota-based industry, work speed data was already
being kept by employers and used to track the efficiency of
employees. The bill would simply allow employees to track that
data. He clarified that the law would apply to all employees,
both union and nonunion, in Alaska.
1:54:58 PM
CHAIR VANCE cited the "Right to request a quota description" on
page 2 of the bill and asked the bill sponsor to address the
impact of the 21-day calendar, [as referenced on lines 23-25].
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered to follow up with the requested
information. He reiterated that he was not pushing a union plan
with the proposed legislation, just trying to protect workers.
1:57:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON shared his understanding that should
the bill pass, it was still the employer's ability to change the
quota; however, it would allow the employee to know about that
change. For that reason, he surmised that the bill was an
"employer full disclosure to employees act." In addition, he
noted that the fiscal note was incomplete.
CHAIR VANCE announced that CSHB 88(L&C) would be held over.
1:58:46 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:58 p.m. to 2:01 p.m.
HB 63-REPEAL WORKERS' COMP APPEALS COMMISSION
2:01:57 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 63, "An Act repealing the Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission; relating to decisions and orders of the
Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission; relating to superior
court jurisdiction over appeals from Alaska Workers'
Compensation Board decisions; repealing Rules 201.1, 401.1, and
501.1, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure, and amending Rules
202(a), 204(a) - (c), 210(e), 601(b), 602(c) and (h), and
603(a), Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and providing for
an effective date."
2:02:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, prime sponsor, presented HB 63. He
shared the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet],
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 63 would save $433,000 per year, remove an
unnecessary bureaucracy, and make Alaska's Workers'
Compensation program more sustainable by repealing the
Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission.
Passing House Bill 63 will return jurisdiction over
appeals of Workers' Compensation Board decisions to
the Superior Court. Currently the Appeals Commission
handles these cases, and their decisions can be
appealed to the Supreme Court.
For decades, the Superior Court had handled these
cases. Operating the Appeals Commission costs $433,000
annually and it currently has two fulltime employees,
while the Court System has testified that they can
handle these cases with their current budget and
staffing levels. The Appeals Commission's workload has
decreased considerably since it was created in 2005.
In 2007, they had 49 new cases filed and published 42
decisions but by 2022 they only had 14 new cases and
published only 5 decisions.
In 2015, the House Labor and Workforce Finance
Subcommittee found the Appeals Commission to be "an
ineffective division" and that "their closure rate and
average time for closure is not demonstrably better
than the process was before the establishment of the
commission."
This bill would create a transition period between
June 1 and December 1 of 2023 when new cases would be
filed with the Superior Court, but the Appeals
Commission would continue to handle the cases that
were already pending. On December 2, all pending cases
would be transferred to the Superior Court and the
Appeals Commission will be fully repealed on December
31.
Alaska's Workers' Compensation regulation is funded by
service fees collected from insurance providers and
self-insurers. In Fiscal Year 2021 the state collected
$6.3 million in fees and the Department of Revenue
projects this will fall to $5.9 million in FY 2022 and
$5.4 million in FY 2023. Given Alaska's budget deficit
and this declining revenue, we simply cannot afford to
spend $433,000 to operate a separate commission when
the courts are well equipped to handle these cases.
2:04:37 PM
MR. MCKEE, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime sponsor,
presented the sectional analysis for HB 63 [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1 establishes that the Workers' Compensation
Board (Board) shall maintain records of the repealed
Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission (Commission).
It also establishes that Commission decisions remain
as legal precedent unless overturned or modified by
the courts.
Section 2 removes references to the Commission.
Section 3 removes a reference to the Commission.
Section 4 removes a reference to the Commission.
Section 5 creates a new AS 23.30.126 governing appeals
of Workers' Compensation Board decisions.
Subsection (a) establishes that Board decisions and
orders become effective when filed, that these
decisions and orders can be modified or reconsidered,
and that a party may appeal a decision or order to the
superior court.
Subsection (b) establishes that Board decisions and
orders are not automatically stayed pending judicial
review and establishes the criteria for when a court
may issue a stay.
Subsection (c) establishes that factual findings made
by the Board shall be conclusive if supported by
substantial evidence and that AS 44.62.570 governing
administrative appeals shall apply to the appeals of
Board decisions.
Subsection (d) allows the director of the Division of
Workers' Compensation to intervene in appeals and to
file appeals if a party is not represented by an
attorney and the case presents an unsettled question
of law.
Section 6 is a conforming amendment to reflect the
changes made by Section 5.
Section 7 removes a reference to the Commission.
Section 8 repeals the court rules related to the
Commission.
Section 9 repeals the statutes related to the
Commission.
Section 10 contains indirect court rule amendments to
reflect the changes made by Section 5.
Section 11 establishes which procedures apply to
appeals pending before the Commission between June 1
and December 1, 2023.
Subsection (a) establishes that the Commission shall
continue to handle cases through December 1, 2023 and
that the Commission shall continue all cases pending
on December 1, 2023.
Subsection (b) establishes that the new procedure in
Section 5 does not apply to cases before December 1,
2023.
Subsection (c) establishes that the old statutes apply
for appeals of final decisions made by the commission
and issued by December 1st.
Section 12 establishes transitional provisions.
Subsection (a) establishes that starting June 1, 2023,
all new appeals of Board decisions shall be filed with
the Superior Court under Section 5.
Subsection (b) establishes that appeals of Commission
rulings issued by December 1, 2023 shall be filed with
the Supreme Court.
Subsection (c) ends the Commission's ability to order
reconsideration of cases on December 2, 2023. All
outstanding requests for reconsideration pending on
that date would be automatically rejected, and any
party whose request was denied may appeal their case
to the Supreme Court.
Subsection (d) requires the Commission to transfer the
files for all pending cases to the Superior Court on
December 2, 2023 and to provide the parties 30 days'
notice of the transfer of jurisdiction. If the court
finds that the records do not meet the requirements of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure, it may order the
Commission to make necessary changes and resubmit
them.
Section 13 ends the terms of all Commission members on
December 31, 2023.
Section 14 makes this act only take effect if the
court rule changes in Sections 8 and 10 are adopted.
Section 15 provides a June 1, 2023 effective date.
2:08:42 PM
MR. MCKEE directed attention to a PowerPoint presentation,
titled "House Bill 63 Repeal Workers' Compensation Appeals
Commission" [hard copy included in the committee packet]. He
began on slide 2, "House Bill 63," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Repeals the Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals
Commission
Returns jurisdiction over Workers' Compensation
appeals to the Superior Court
Saves $482,400 per year
Helps fill the Workers' Compensation budget deficit
and make Alaska's Workers' Compensation system more
solvent
MR. MCKEE continued to slide 3, which featured a flowchart of
the workers' compensation claim appeals process. He moved to
slide 4, "HB 63 Will Save $482,400 Per Year," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Currently the Commission has 2 full-time employees and
pays for commissioners' travel and per diem
Previously, the Court System has testified that they
can absorb these cases with a zero fiscal note
2:10:06 PM
MR. MCKEE directed attention to the graph on slide 5, indicating
that the commission's workload had declined from 49 cases filed
and 42 published decisions in 2007 to 4 cases filed and 5
decisions issued in 2023. Slide 6 read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
"The Worker's Compensation Appeals Commission is an
ineffective division? The Commission during the
calendar year of 2013 closed 30 cases for a closure
rate of 67 percent with an average time from filing to
closure of seven months. This closure rate and average
time for closure is not demonstrably better than the
process was before the establishment of the
commission."
House Department of Labor and Workforce Development
Finance Subcommittee, February 25, 2015
2:11:15 PM
MR. MCKEE continued to slide 7, "The workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission Has Not Closed Cases Faster than the Courts,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• The Superior Court took "8 to 18 months" to decide
Workers' Compensation Appeals.
• When the Appeals Commission was created, it was
estimated that the Commission could decide cases in 6
months.
• Instead, in 2018 it averaged 12.2 months to decide
cases.
• Even as their workload decreased, in 2021 they still
averaged 9.3 months to decide cases.
• More Commission decisions are appealed to the
Supreme Court, adding months to years before final
resolution.
Sources: Testimony of Paul Lisankie, Director,
Division of Workers' Compensation, Senate Labor and
Commerce Committee, March 10, 2005.
Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission Annual
Report for Calendar Year 2021.
MR. MCKEE proceeded to slide 8, "HB 63 Will Reduce Appeals to
the Supreme Court," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
When the Superior Court handled appeals approximately
25% of their decisions were appealed to the Supreme
Court.
Since the Commission was created in 2005, 36% of its
decisions have been appealed to the Supreme Court.
Since 2011, 50% of Commission decisions have been
appealed.
Sources: Testimony of Doug Wooliver, administrative
attorney, Alaska Court System, Senate Labor and
Commerce Committee, March 10, 2005. Legislative
Research Services Report 19-175.
2:12:41 PM
MR. MCKEE moved to slide 9, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Alaska's Workers' Compensation and Safety Program
Faces a Growing Budget Deficit-HB 63 Will Help Fill It
• Workers' Compensation and Safety are funded by a tax
on Workers' Compensation payments
• These programs cost $9.1 million annually and are
projected to remain flat
• Saving $482,4000 will help close the growing budget
gap.
MR. MCKEE concluded on slide 10, "Bottom Line," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 63 saves $482,400 annually
Preserves parties' right to have their cases heard in
timely manner
Will reduce appeals to the Supreme Court
Makes Alaska's Workers' Compensation system more
solvent
2:13:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether there were any attorneys or
paralegals on the commission.
MR. MCKEE stated that the chair was a lawyer; however, the two
commissioners were not. In response to a follow up question, he
confirmed that the caseload had decreased significantly, but the
time it takes to render a decision remained the same.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD highlighted the letter from Mr. Croft, an
attorney, in the supporting documents.
2:14:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked why the number of cases had fallen
over the years.
MR. MCKEE pointed out that more safety measures were being
implemented by companies, resulting in fewer grievances being
filed.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER explained that businesses were
constantly holding safety meetings and implementing safety
measures to decrease injuries on the job because compensation
costs money.
2:16:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY sought to confirm that there was a zero
fiscal note for up to 30 cases.
MR. MCKEE confirmed that the commission could take up to 30
cases at no additional cost. In response to a follow up
question, he said the courts would determine the fiscal cost if
the case count were to rise above 30.
2:17:40 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 63 would be held over.
2:18:31 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:18 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 170 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB 170 - v.A.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB 170 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB 170 - Civil Divison of DOL Fiscal Note.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB 88 - v.B.PDF |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 88 |
| HB 88 - Sectional Analysis v.B.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 88 |
| HB 88 - Explanation of Changes Between v.A to v.B.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 88 |
| HB 88 - DOA Fiscal Note.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 88 |
| HB 88 - DOL Fiscal Note.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 88 |
| HB 63 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 63 |
| HB 63 - v.A.PDF |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 63 |
| HB 63 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 63 |
| HB 63 - Powerpoint Presentation.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 63 |
| HB 63 - Legislative Research - AWCAC Cases 2005-2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 63 |
| HB 63 - Supporting Document-Croft Letter 4.2.17.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 63 |
| HB 63 - Supporting Document-Croft Research 4.2.17.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 63 |
| HB 63 - Court System Fiscal Note.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 63 |
| HB 63 - DOL - Workers Comp..pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 63 |