02/09/2005 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB31 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 9, 2005
3:21 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 31
"An Act relating to the presumption of coverage for a workers'
compensation claim for disability as a result of certain
diseases for certain occupations."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 31
SHORT TITLE: WORKERS' COMP: ILLNESS PRESUMPTION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ANDERSON
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) L&C, HES, FIN
02/09/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
JON BITTNER, Staff
Representative Anderson
Alaskan State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 31 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Anderson.
MIKE DAVIDSON, Firefighter
Anchorage Fire Department
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 31.
MIKE DRYGAS, President
Alaska Professional Firefighter Association
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 31.
DAVE BODDY, Firefighter
Juneau/Douglas Fire Department
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 31.
SUSAN DANIELS, Vice President
Workers Compensation
Northern Adjusters
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 31.
BRAD THOMPSON, Director
Division of Risk Management
Department of Administration
Alaska State Government
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 31.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:21:33 PM. Representatives
Crawford, Ledoux, Kott, and Anderson were present at the call to
order. Representatives Rokeberg, Lynn, and Guttenberg arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 31-WORKERS' COMP: ILLNESS PRESUMPTION
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the only order of business would
be "HOUSE BILL NO. 31 "An Act relating to the presumption of
coverage for a workers' compensation claim for disability as a
result of certain diseases for certain occupations."
JON BITTNER, Staff to Representative Anderson, Alaskan State
Legislature, announced that House Bill 31 is a presumption of
illness bill that addresses some concerns that first responders
and firefighters face on a regular basis. He began with an
outline of the bill.
3:22:46 PM
MR. BITTNER first described subsection a, which defines
presumptive of illness as being the presumption of
epidemiological link of an Emergency Medical Service (EMS)
career and environment to eventual disease outbreak within
individuals. Statistically, it has been proven that EMS workers
have a higher incidence of certain types of cancers and other
maladies than the general public as a result of their work
environment. Subsection b is specific to firemen and the smoke
they inhale. Subsection c deals with all the first responders
and blood born pathogens. Subsection d deals with the
exceptions this presumption. Subsection e deals with compliance
rules and exceptions.
3:24:18 PM
MIKE DAVIDSON- Firefighter, Anchorage Fire Department, stated
that this bill is important because it offers some
[epidemiological] presumptions as to how certain illnesses have
arisen. There is statistical evidence to show that certain
illnesses are directly attributable to work environment and fire
suppression activities. One of the problems with the current
insurance environment is in regard to causation. Often,
insurance companies ask what fire or activity caused the cancer
or malady, which is like asking a smoker what cigarette caused
his lung cancer. This link cannot be made and is illogical. He
stated that the group he represents is trying to create
reasonable and smart legislation that rightly recognizes that
there is clear and direct evidence illustrating the linkage
between firefighting to illnesses that many of us suffer from.
He pointed out that the number one goal for the future is to
have no illness being suffered as a direct result of the
occupation.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked Mr. Davidson, with respect to all firemen
associations, if there was support.
MR. DAVIDSON answered that assuredly there was support.
3:27:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD first stated that he was very much in
favor of this bill, and then inquired as to the proposed wording
changes.
MR. DAVIDSON answered that there was some concern, but asserted
that the bill is not intended to modify current workers'
compensation. The bill is designed to provide presumption for
certain illnesses or diseases that are contracted by employees
in certain occupations. He then stated that it seemed pretty
clear in the current language and he wanted to make the intent
perfectly clear what their intent is and what it is not.
3:28:54 PM
MR. DAVIDSON finished by stating that though he was aware of
concerns and needed language changes, he had nothing to submit
at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD pointed out that it would be nice to
make those changes before the bill moves out of committee.
MR. DAVIDSON pointed out that one of the changes he wanted to
see was located on page 1, line 9, where the word
"preponderance' is used to describe medical evidence. He stated
that he wanted this changed to "clear and convincing", which
better defines what is necessary to rebut an insurance claim
refusal. He pointed out that, not withstanding AS 23.30.120,
that firefighters are not advocating any modification of this
statute. However firefighters are trying to indicate that there
clear links to illnesses being suffered by EMS personnel and
this occupation.
3:31:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD indicated that the conceptual amendment
would create 'intent' language, which would supplement the
existing language. He then stated that this is something that
the committee could do if it agreed.
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that while he understood what
Representative Crawford was saying, he clarified that intent
language should target first responders and their specific
[epidemiological] concerns, and not change workers compensation
laws.
MR. DAVIDSON responded by stating that he understood what Chair
Anderson was saying and that the reason he said what he said was
that he did not want to suggest something that he was not fully
sure about inserting the phrase. Conceptually, however, this
is, he said, language that is needed by the bill to address the
concerns of the EMS industry of Alaska.
CHAIR ANDERSON iterated that although he is the sponsor of the
bill, he did so at the behest of the Firefighters Association of
Alaska. He then stated that if the association has not been
able to review the language, then the best thing to do is to do
this via the committee process. He announced that there are
three other committees poised to hear the bill and asked whether
Mr. Davidson would mind going through this process without the
additional language at this point.
3:33:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG referring to page 2, paragraphs (2)
and (3), asked what happens after 60 months, the time given in
the bill that will cover individuals and allow them to still
evoke their experience with EMS as an epidemiological link to
any illness that might occur. He then asked what happened to
the individual whose disease manifests past this specified time
parameter.
MR. DAVIDSON asserted that this bill qualifies you for a
presumption, and shifts the burden to the employer to prove that
the illness has a causative agent that is beyond the impact of
the individual's time in the EMS. After 60 months separation,
they lose the benefit of presumption, however, and the burden
shifts back to the employee.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG, referring to paragraph (3) on page 2,
asked, in lieu of the 10 years of service that is required for
the presumption to take place, an individual takes a fall and is
not able get the required ten years for coverage.
MR. DAVIDSON answered that it was written this way because the
research did not indicate that any of the illnesses occurred
until ten years of service were put in by the EMS personnel.
Certainly there are cancers that can be prolific after much less
time. Such cancers manifest themselves after exposure to
greater than normal levels of radiation for which presumptive
language isn't necessary since this kind of epidemiological
event and its etiological root is quite evident. Right now, he
said, the committee is talking about long-term exposure to
multiple events.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what the exposure rate is over
various time frames.
3:37:34 PM
MR. DAVIDSON asserted that an individual does not qualify for
this if he does not have 10 years in the service. He continued
to say that although this presumptive clause, you can still file
a claim. If a manifestation of cancer or other life-threatening
event occurs and a physician can vouch for the condition and
possible etiology, the individual can file a claim. Studies
have implicated long-term exposure, but short-term exposure
simply does not come up in the literature.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that he thought this was a good
question, and he pointed out that it showed prudence on the part
of the sponsoring group to cover itself when it came to people's
ability to obtain health coverage for any disease that may arise
after a year or two of leaving the EMS occupational industry.
3:38:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG relayed a concern he received from a
person on the ad hoc committee who complained about the
underwriting that certain employers have done in favor of
workers' compensation coverage instead of self-insured coverage.
He then stated that his biggest concern is the language in
subsection (c), starting on line 22. He explained that it seems
to be nonexclusive for the firefighters and is seemingly open to
anyone that works in the medical field. He added that by
reading it this way, the bill's scope is enormous.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if this was inadvertent or purposeful.
MR. DAVIDSON responded that his group did not want to exclude
professional groups that are also part of the emergency response
team. Firefighters are part of this team and the report on
cancer is specific to their particular work environment.
MR. DAVIDSON continued by stating that other emergency response
professions, such as paramedics, EMT's, and police officers, are
just as likely to have a hostile work environment. He concluded
by stating that he disagreed with Representative Rokeberg and
felt that other EMS occupations are clearly covered by the bill
and were in mind when the bill was written.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that this could mean that tens of
thousands of individuals would possibly be covered by this bill
and this bill could have huge ramifications for the state. He
pointed out that every medical provider in one form or another
could qualify for this etiological presumption.
CHAIR ANDERSON said that the committee needed to be careful and
assess this point.
3:42:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she was confused about
Subsection (b), and asked if it meant that the terms of the
presumption gives you three months for every year of service,
topping off at 60 months of presumption coverage.
MR. DAVIDSON stated that the reason this was included in the
bill was to give an epidemiological presumption, not to
guarantee health coverage itself. He reiterated there is not
enough evidence to show that short-term employment would warrant
60 months of coverage. Those working for a shorter duration
will have to go through the traditional route of workers
compensation since there was no evidence for giving a
presumption for disease manifestation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired at what point disease
manifestation evident in the person is used for equating the
medial problem with time worked.
3:44:22 PM
MR. DAVIDSON stated that the best way to look at this would be
the example of benzene exposure, which is a highly carcinogenic
compound, and fire suppression activities, which also
contributes highly carcinogenic elements to the individual's
body over time. There is not an exact level of exposure that is
linked to cancer; it is specific to the individual and the level
of exposure over time. He announced that he had seen
correlative studies that showed that specific cancers were
evidenced at specific doses of benzene compounds. The same
applies to the daily fire suppression activities which
correlated to specific types of cancer. The research also
showed that firefighters in general have greater rates of cancer
than the general populace. This all leads to occupational
exposure. He then said that there was no evidence to show that
short-term occupational exposure had the same effects.
MR. DAVIDSON stated again that the provisions in the bill do not
diminish the prospect of coverage. The bill stipulates that
having a short time of employment or the exhaustion of the
maximum presumptive time allotment (60 months), does not
disallow the individual the right to file a claim. The
individual has to have a physician provide evidence for the
epidemiological and etiological link to the disease
manifestation. The former employer still has the option to
discount this opinion by obtaining an opinion from another
physician.
3:46:19 PM
MIKE DRYGAS, President, Alaska Professional Firefighter
Association, referring to the previous speaker, said that its
good public policy to protect the state's firefighters. The
bill provides medical coverage for diseases that result in
terminal illnesses, and it ensures that the coverage covers
treatment during the time of need. Moreover, the bill ensures
that there will not be a battle between the patient and the
insurance companies regarding responsibility for treatment
costs.
MR. DRYGAS stressed that firefighting is not a sanitary job and
the environment of an emergency cannot be controlled for.
However, he noted that firefighters today are much more careful
than they were 10 years earlier, and that safety is now a prime
concern. He then related the nature of some of the events that
firefighters go through while wearing a tank of air and working
in the midst of a fire. This included toxic chemicals, smoke,
and vapors. He added that a firefighter cannot know or prepare
for the chemicals that may be in the room.
3:49:11 PM
MR. DRYGAS stated that this heavy risk for firefighters has been
handed down as a sort of unspoken secret with firefighters;
lifetimes for firemen are short. He pointed out that this trend
is especially common with the old timers, referred to as smoke-
eaters, who have been known to die within months of retiring.
He echoed earlier testimony on research that showed that
specific cancers of the body are specific to the industry itself
with incidence and prevalence. He ended by stating that the
Alaskan Firefighter Association tried to package this as workman
compensation package rather than a fringe package, and then
stated that these benefits are rightly deserved by firefighters.
3:51:17 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON highlighted the unique situation of Alaska. He
stated that in Alaska, the access that people have to modern
fire departments can be challenging. Referring to the forest
fires that hit central Alaska every summer, he said that this
extra exposure was an extenuating hardship and asked if these
areas of Alaska were superior in harm to health and well being
than the exposure received by those who fight only urban fires.
He then asked if this was another reason for the bill.
MR. DRYGAS agreed that there are some unique factors and that
there are many cases where municipal firefighters are used for
wild land fires, but this is really not unusual.
3:52:40 PM
DAVE BODDY, Firefighter, introduced himself as a second-
generation firefighter who is quite involved with issues
concerning Southeast Alaskan firefighters. He highlighted the
fact that this bill would provide health coverage for Alaskans
who become ill are covered and while fighting the illness, they
don't have to worry about how their families will be provided
for once they have died. He agreed that this is good public
policy. He stressed that although firefighting is inherently
safer now than years back, there are still things in the
firefighting environment for which there is no control over, and
there are chemicals that cannot be avoided.
3:54:38 PM
SUSAN DANIELS, Vice President, Workers' Compensation, Northern
Adjusters, announced that she would offer a view that is from a
claims perspective. She expressed concern about specific
language, on page 2, lines 22-24, which she interpreted to mean
that anyone working in a medical field who is exposed to human
blood on the job can file a claim. She related that a study
done by the State of Michigan concluded that lung cancers, skin
cancers, and lymphomas, did not have a significantly high
prevalence within the EMS industry, and that the correlation
only occurs with a 30-year exposure time. She then expressed
concern over the implication that volunteer firefighters who she
said do not maintain good physical health and are more often
than not, very obese and have a smoking history, both of which
are contributing factor to disease manifestation. She stated
that many parts of the bill are broad reaching and arbitrary.
She concluded that she could not give support to the bill and
would oppose it until changes in the language were made.
CHAIR ANDERSON directed attention to subsection (c), and
inquired as to how it could be worked such that firemen, EMS
responders, and law enforcement are all included in the
presumption.
3:59:04 PM
MS. DANIELS explained that the presumption currently works is
that when contact with tainted body fluids occurs, a notice of
injury should be filed by the worker through workers'
compensation, AS 23.30.120 of the law covering this action. If
the injury is filed within 30 days, the individual is
automatically given presumption for the injury and are covered.
She stated that if documentation and a report are made, the
exposure and resulting condition is covered by existing law and
workers' compensation. She said that she was not sure if an
alternative needed to be added to what she felt was an adequate
provision.
CHAIR ANDERSON then said that he wanted to have Mr. Davidson
back up to answer these questions.
4:00:09 PM
MR. DAVIDSON argued that certainly, obvious exposure routes are
routinely covered. However, he expressed that exposure
sometimes occurs in less than obvious routes. He mentioned that
although he wears respirators, gloves, and skin protection, he
often discovers blood on his clothing and skin. He stated a
reasonable assumption that as many times he had found this
unknown exposure, there were also times that he did not. He
stated the problem is that that these exposure events happen
when EMS are in the midst of saving lives, not in between jobs.
4:02:23 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if HB 31 could be made more specific to
contain certain people like peace officers.
MR. DAVIDSON pointed out that one of the primary reasons his
group is pursuing this, is that unlike other medical
occupations, EMS personnel do not prescreen their patients and
cannot always be aware of exactly what they are going up
against. Although he indicated that it might be advisable to
consider modification to the bill, he was not sure what term
would be exclusive and still include all of the people that they
are trying to cover without being too inclusive.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked Representative Rokeberg if he was
comfortable with terminology that was inclusive of law
enforcement and public health people or the opposite, where it
was excluded and only EMS personnel were included.
4:04:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that it clearly needed to be
narrowed and then characterized it as answered as a policy call
for the committee which needs to decide how wide the presumption
needs to be.
CHAIR ANDERSON, speaking as the sponsor, announced that his
prime agenda for the bill, since he was the sponsor, is to cover
firefighters, EMTs, and emergency medical staff, and peace
officers, which would include corrections officers.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG added that specificity is critical.
CHAIR ANDERSON recalled that approximately two years ago, in
House Bill 91, the 20-year medical retirement bill, peace
officers were included.
MR. DAVIDSON suggested that substituting the phrase "for an
employee" found on page 2, line 22, with "firefighter, emergency
medical services worker or peace officer would be good".
4:05:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG stated that the inclusion of these
various occupations could be construed by level of exposure and
who, in the public health sector, has what in terms of possible
exposure or endangerment from work environments.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if there are any people here from the
Department of Health and Human Services.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that its one thing to work in a
hospital and then it is quite another thing to work in the
environment of a first responder.
4:07:37 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if "first responder" was the appropriate
definition.
MR. DAVIDSON answered that he could not find another occupation
that did not fall under the term 'first responder' and that
firefighter, EMS, and peace officer seemed be classified
appropriately under this term.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that there was a letter written to
himself from Barbara Craver, Legislative Counsel, from the
Division of Legal and Research Services, who said:
In regard to the presumption established for workers
exposed to human blood or body fluids I did not limit
that to 'first responders'. We do not have any
current definition in the statutes for first
responders, or any other term that covers all the
occupations you has listed, [such as] firefighters,
airport police, corrections officers, trooper and
other first responders.
CHAIR ANDERSON continued by stating that he thought that the
committee was fine in passing the amendment changing the term to
firefighter and emergency medical personnel, or a peace officer
would be fine
BRAD THOMPSON, Director, Division of Risk Management, Department
of Administration, announced that the State of Alaska is an
authorized self-insured employer, so it pays its claims out of
its own pocket. He, too, expressed concern with the expansive
language, which would cover anyone in the medical occupation.
He indicated further concern because there is no qualifying time
period for employment and eventual exposure. Unlike the prior
rules, the conditional clause stipulated that one only receives
the provisional coverage if one meets the 10-year employment
limit. He said that it was very difficult to be able to predict
how many claims the state would have. However, he indicated
that the claims that have been received were expensive and
associated with chronic disease.
CHAIR ANDERSON stated [paraphrasing a letter from Barbara Craven
dated December 15, 2004] that because contagious human diseases
transmitted through exposure to human blood and body fluids were
covered for firefighters in states like Washington and Idaho,
she decided to take the more general approach and apply it to
anyone whose occupation involves exposure to human blood or body
fluids. He then capitulated that Mr. Thompson is requesting a
time limit and wants to keep people from taking benefits due to
exposure on the first day of the job.
MR. THOMPSON answered that the language is quite expansive.
4:12:08 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON said he wanted to hold the bill and revisit it
after a week. He also indicated that he would keep public
testimony open in order to take comments once changes have been
made to the definition. He said that he did not think that he
could please everyone, especially those in the insurance
industry, however, in reference to the coverage, he did believe
that by looking at similar legislation found in other states, a
compromise could be created that would cover firefighters and
peace officers.
4:14:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what would happen in the current
statute if an incident is reported within 30 days, and then
asked who was obligated to submit this report.
MS. DANIELS answered that once the employer knows about the
incident, the employer has to file within 10 days. The employee
has 30 days to report the injury to the employer.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX posed a situation in which the employer
forgets to file the workers' compensation claim. In such a
situation, she said, the employee would then face the
possibility of losing the claim. She asked if this were the
case. She surmised that this would forgo any coverage by the
presumptive insurance clause that currently exists.
MS. DANIELS answered that if the employee did report his claim
diligently and on time, the employer then could still report the
claim past the 10-day limitation set upon them.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG announced that he was baffled with the
state risk management, and asked if the state was required to
follow the same statute guidelines if they are self employed or
is this done voluntarily.
MR. THOMPSON answered that the state would comply with the
statute. He continued by stating that all employers have to
comply with the ramifications of the statute and any changes
that may result after today's changes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG then recalled that Mr. Thompson had said
that the division routinely looked at other methodologies for
making more presumptive claims for benefits for these types of
workers. He stated that they were benefits that were not
workers' compensation, but other health insurance or other
compensation packages.
MR. THOMPSON related his understanding that there is an effort
to provide compensation through an additional insurance product
that goes beyond the workers' compensation that is received as a
result of incurring the known and recognized disease incidents
and illnesses that occur routinely over the course of one's
working life. This new product is created by an enhancement of
presumption of what is termed 'life illnesses' and is done
through reform or extension of coverage of the workers
compensation program or through a pension or benefit scheme.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that if one is self-ensured, most
of the pools are all supplied by the self-ensured or some
governmental entity. He then indicated that some are financially
more sound than others. He asked about some forms of cancers
that are routinely compensated through normal insurance, and
then there is the other benefits that would accrue through other
workers compensation schemes.
MR. THOMPSON explained that the consideration is to expand an
additional presumption for the "lifetime illness", and perhaps
this could already be covered by the medical benefit provided by
the employer or some other self-purchase policy.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that traditionally, the medical
cost is picked up by the health insurance plan or other
additional training or other benefits under workman's
compensation.
4:19:38 PM
MR. THOMPSON stated that the division provides workers'
compensation to the state, but he is not familiar with the
Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) medical bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked why there are multiple forms of
social benefits here and why the private insurance companies do
not pay for the claim.
MR. THOMPSON said that he was not the one to answer that
question.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, referring to the language change from
"preponderance of evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence",
asked if there are any current standards in workers'
compensations claim determination that require this level of
evidence.
MR. THOMPSON related his understanding that the act does
establish an ability of the employer to raise substantial
evidence that when examined alone would eliminate or establish
another cause for the said condition. He went on to say that a
presumption is implied and it is up to the employer to provide
evidence that suggests the contrary. If the evidence is
convincing enough, the presumption is thrown out and the
evidence is weighed at that point, and the burden of proof
shifts to the employee. He ended by stating that this bill is
going to reform the presentation of the presumptions beyond what
is being discussed here.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that this might be better
answered by Ms. Daniels. He asked if the proposed language
change would affect the current practices.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD interjected that "preponderance" is 50
plus one. If there was any factor that tipped the balance of
the scales then it is a preponderance. He went on to define the
term 'substantial' as one that means 'clear and convincing'.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered that these are legal terms of
art and depending on how they are applied, they can be clear or
unclear.
MS. DANIELS stated that coming to an understanding concerning
this language would warrant consideration since there is a
Supreme Court case involving precedence and the phrase "clear
and convincing".
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained, referring to his own
experience with his wife who contracted hepatitis C as a scrub
nurse, that the presentation of the disease did occur within the
30-day allotment provided by workers' compensation. However, it
had been HIV, the disease would not have manifested within the
timelines stipulated by the workers' compensation statutes. He
concluded by stating that the committee needed to be more
careful with the issue so people are not left without medical
coverage.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN resolved that the bill needs to be
tightened, because [social services] "can't cover the universe".
He then recalled his experience as a soldier in Vietnam and said
that although he did not remember being showered with Agent
Orange, a presumption exists that says since he was in the war
environment, any chronic disease suffered in the future can be
linked to this experience. However, he personally could not
presume to think that his diabetes was caused by the defoliant.
He concluded by stating that this is a good bill, but it should
be tightened up to help all those concerned.
[HB 31 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:27:49 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|