Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 17
04/01/2005 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB211 | |
| HB216 | |
| HB180 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 211 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 227 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 180 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 1, 2005
3:41 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. 211
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Dental
Examiners; and relating to dentists and dental hygienists."
- MOVED HB 211 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 216
"An Act relating to insurance rate-making and form filing."
- MOVED CSHB 216 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 180
"An Act relating to a special deposit for workers' compensation
and employers' liability insurers; relating to assigned risk
pools; relating to workers' compensation insurers; stating the
intent of the legislature, and setting out limitations,
concerning the interpretation, construction, and implementation
of workers' compensation laws; relating to the Alaska Workers'
Compensation Board; establishing a division of workers'
compensation within the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, assigning certain Alaska Workers' Compensation
Board functions to the division and the department, and
authorizing the board to delegate administrative and enforcement
duties to the division; establishing a Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission; providing for workers' compensation hearing
officers in workers' compensation proceedings; relating to
workers' compensation medical benefits and to charges for and
payment of fees for the medical benefits; relating to agreements
that discharge workers' compensation liability; relating to
workers' compensation awards; relating to reemployment benefits
and job dislocation benefits; relating to coordination of
workers' compensation and certain disability benefits; relating
to division of workers' compensation records; relating to
release of treatment records; relating to an employer's failure
to insure and keep insured or provide security; providing for
appeals from compensation orders; relating to workers'
compensation proceedings; providing for supreme court
jurisdiction of appeals from the Workers' Compensation Appeals
Commission; providing for a maximum amount for the cost-of-
living adjustment for workers' compensation benefits; relating
to attorney fees; providing for the department to enter into
contracts with nonprofit organizations to provide information
services and legal representation to injured employees;
providing for administrative penalties for employers uninsured
or without adequate security for workers' compensation; relating
to fraudulent acts or false or misleading statements in workers'
compensation and penalties for the acts or statements; providing
for members of a limited liability company to be included as an
employee for purposes of workers' compensation; establishing a
workers' compensation benefits guaranty fund; relating to the
second injury fund; making conforming amendments; providing for
a study and report by the medical services review committee; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 227
"An Act relating to the Alaska Small Loans Act; and providing
for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 211
SHORT TITLE: DENTISTS; HYGIENISTS; BD OF DENTAL EXAM.
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY
03/07/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/07/05 (H) L&C, FIN
04/01/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 216
SHORT TITLE: INSURANCE RATES,FORMS, AND FILING
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
03/09/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/09/05 (H) L&C, FIN
03/18/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/18/05 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to Mon.
3/21/05>
03/21/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/21/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/01/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 180
SHORT TITLE: WORKERS' COMPENSATION
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/25/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/25/05 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
03/09/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/09/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/16/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/16/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/21/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/21/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/22/05 (H) L&C AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/22/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/30/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/30/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/01/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
HEATH HILYARD, Staff
Representative Mike Kelly
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 211
JIM TOWLE, Executive Director
Alaska Dental Society
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 211
PAUL LISANKIE, Director
Division of Workers' Compensation
Department of Labor and Workforce Development
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 180.
LINDA HALL, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 180.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:41:02 PM.
HB 211-DENTISTS; HYGIENISTS; BD OF DENTAL EXAM.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 211, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Board of Dental Examiners; and relating to dentists and
dental hygienists."
HEATH HILYARD, Staff of Representative Mike Kelly, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that this bill is basically an extension of
the Board of Dental Examiners to 2011. Mr. Hilyard related that
some of the provisions in this legislation are the result of a
Legislative Audit Division audit and others are the result of a
2004 meeting in which the Division of Occupational Licensing,
the Board of Dental Examiners, and the Alaska Dental Society.
He emphasized that first and foremost, the legislation
implements continuing education requirements for dental
hygienists, modifies the inspection period for radiological
equipment used in dentistry, and clarifies the qualifications
for licensure and specialty licensure in the state. Mr. Hilyard
informed the committee that at this time the sponsor and the
Alaska Dental Society have no knowledge of anyone opposing the
proposed changes.
3:44:36 PM
JIM TOWLE, Executive Director, Alaska Dental Society, informed
the committee that the Alaska Dental Hygiene Association was
part of the meetings and negotiations referred to earlier.
3:45:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested that Mr. Towle describe the
changes to statute encompassed in HB 211.
3:45:34 PM
MR. TOWLE stated that his understanding that the change from 14
weekly hours to 700 hours a year, which equate to roughly the
same amount of time, makes sure that clinicians are not taking
long breaks in the treatment of patients. Therefore, their
clinical skills remain up to the same level as they were when
obtaining a license. The continuing education provision is what
is required of dentists and is applied to dental hygienists in
HB 211.
3:46:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG referring to page 2, line 5,
[paragraph] 6, asked if the Board of Alaskan Dentists, the
American Dental Association, Academy of General Dentistry, and
the American Dental Hygienists Association have uniform
standards or do they compete with one another.
3:47:20 PM
MR. TOWLE answered that the American Dental Association and the
Academy of General Dentistry have comparable standards. Since
this legislation is focused on hygienists, deference was given
to the American Hygiene Association because this is changing
licensure by credentials in AS 08.32, which governs hygiene.
Therefore, hygienists would have the same standards as dentists.
3:48:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if there are similar
organizations to those already listed that have different
standards.
3:48:56 PM
MR. TOWLE answered, "Not that are national in scope."
3:49:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked, referring to page [4], line 5,
and subparagraph (H), whether a person can be convicted of a
crime that's a serious felony that could be outside of the
aforementioned definition.
3:50:20 PM
MR. TOWLE indicated that the thinking and rationale was if one
is convicted of a traffic offense, for example, it shouldn't
preclude one from the practice of dentistry.
3:51:07 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if a driving under the influence offense
would result in a dentist's license being pulled based on
subparagraph (H).
3:51:18 PM
MR. TOWLE said he couldn't answer that question. He didn't
believe that currently the license could be revoked in such a
situation. However, he opined that there might be some question
as whether the individual has a drinking problem that would
impair his or her ability to practice dentistry.
3:51:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked posed a scenario in which someone
had been convicted of fraud in billing practices and had
unlawfully billed Medicaid, and asked if that would impact the
ability to practice dentistry.
3:52:21 PM
MR. TOWLE answered that it wouldn't compromise the individual's
clinical practices. Being convicted of Medicaid fraud and the
state took action, the Dental Society [doesn't hold the view]
that an individual in such a situation should lose his or her
ability to be a dentist. He suggested that perhaps that's
something the Division of Occupational Licensing should address.
3:53:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected that the aforementioned is
covered in subparagraph (F).
3:53:57 PM
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislator Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Alaska State Legislature, answered that she had not studied the
issue presently being discussed. However, as a result of the
audit, the division recommends a six-year extension due to the
fact that the division found the board is operating in the
public's interest. The audit makes no recommendations for
improvements. Additionally, since an abnormally high amount of
boards and commissions are facing sunset this year, the division
is recommending longer extensions to smooth this out in order to
avoid consideration of so many boards in a given year.
3:55:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG, referring to page 2, asked if the
decision to change the dental radiological equipment inspection
rate from five to six years was a recommendation of the audit.
3:55:27 PM
MS. DAVIDSON answered that only the extension date was a result
of the audit.
3:56:10 PM
MR. HILYARD stated that his understanding that the change was
[the result] of the meeting [of the Alaska Dental Society], and
was a function of convenience for the period of inspection.
3:56:41 PM
MR. TOWLE explained that the existing inspection system is
working. When this [language] was originally created, the
intent was to mandate an inspection once every five years. The
key change [desired by the Alaska Dental Society] is the
changing of the ["fourth" to "fifth"] so that the office is
inspected within five calendar years after the year of
inspection.
3:59:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said that this cleared things up.
3:59:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report HB 211 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 216-PROPERTY/CASUALTY INSURANCE REGULATION
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 216, "An Act relating to insurance rate-making
and form filing."
The committee took an at-ease from 4:01:24 to 4:01:54.
[REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt version CS HB 216
version 24-LS0349\Y, Bullock, 3/31/05.]
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the Version Y was before the
committee.
4:02:18 PM
LINDA HALL, Director, Division of Insurance, stated that the CS
has some changes and that she would like to talk about the
process that led to the CS and the original bill. She said that
the end goal was to come up with more efficient means of rate
and form review to enhance market place and make it more
attractive to other companies. She revealed that the changes
made by the CS were met through the same process of meetings and
online discussions with the industry and Division members.
MS. HALL stated that the major changes are found in a chart that
the committee has. Predominately things that were redundant
were changed. None of these changes were substantive. Self-
certification language was probably the most substantive in
nature. It is now clear that we want clear complete and
accurate filings. She indicated that she is fully in support of
the bill and thinks that it is an improvement of the regulatory
environment as it maintains consumer protections and allows for
flexibility that we did not have before. She then directed the
committee's attention to a letter that was filed with the
committee that answered some of the questions that
Representative Rokeberg has concerning the bill. There is also
a chart of bills that other states have adopted file and use
systems, and it also gives information concerning about filings
over the years and what did and did not qualify for filing under
the flex rating system. It also included information concerning
the number of days that it took to post a file.
4:06:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG referring to page 4 section 8,
suggested that if someone raised their rates and then repeated
the process 12 months later. He asked if this were something
that was approved of by the Division.
4:06:43 PM
MS. HALL stipulated that she would have to look at those. She
stated that this would send up flags but that this situation
could be allowed given certain circumstances. She said that it
would get some scrutiny.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked that if a company protested and
said that they fulfilled the requirements of the statute, would
the bill allow one to pursue this.
4:07:38 PM
MS. HALL indicated that it would have to be done with
jurisprudence and there has to be substantial proof that they
are in violation of the statute.
4:08:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked how long it would take to
examine the documents and mitigate the violation.
4:08:17 PM
MS. HALL answered that different filings have different number
of days. The thing that slows filings down is when things get
bogged down due to back and forth exchanges that need to
thoroughly addressed. Typically it takes three or four days
depending on the complexity.
4:08:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that in one example, the recent
77 rate filings that were received and most of them took an
average time of 40 days to be dealt with by the Division. He
then stated that 24 of these 77 rate filings took from 50 days
to around 100 days. This time period consisted of two months to
do almost a third of the work. It is obvious that the flex rate
would allow the industry market the ability to adapt and change
without having to go through the approval process. He then
asked if her division still controlled the oversight and if they
still took corrective action on any problem that might occur in
the self-governing flex rate system.
4:09:53 PM
MS. HALL answered that this was indeed the case.
4:10:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that one of the concerns was
that with the granting of the flex rate system, the department
would be diminished in their authority and oversight. He then
asked if the rate examples in the letter were actual examples
from the state.
4:10:27 PM
MS. HALL said that they were real examples, minus their
identity. She then went on to say that these are typical rate
filings.
4:10:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out, in reference to the
examples that there were numerous times that the rates do go
down. He then said that rates really do go down, as evidenced
by a 20 point rate band.
4:11:04 PM
MS. HALL said that part of the responsibility of the division
was to look at not only inadequate rates that can lead to
insolvency but to also look at excessive rates and decide if
they can be lower. She believes that the intent of the bill is
to speed up the process and make it more responsiveness to the
market. It allows an immediate response to conditions.
Insurers will know that they can now file a rate decrease and
increase with ease. This bill allows the rate to go both ways.
4:12:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed and said this was a very positive
thing for the state. He then reemphasized that the Division
still maintains the rate setting requirements of new producers.
4:12:36 PM
MR. HALL said that this was correct.
4:12:44 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON asked how would you categorize the support for
this bill by industry.
4:13:05 PM
MS. HALL indicated that in her two-year experience that the
agent community approached her about the idea so that it would
enhance the market and make it more responsive. She stated that
industry had worked hard to modernize the way that business is
conducted in Alaska. One of the things I hear regularly is that
at some companies, the agents have to schedule computer time,
and if you miss the appointment, the agent has to wait another 6
months to input their data. There is a stability here and that
if all standards of the title the division knows its rate will
be effective and the division can plan for its effective use,
regardless if it is up or down.
4:14:51 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that ENCOIL is very supportive of
modernization.
4:15:07 PM
MS. HALL stated that ENCOIL supports this bill and the National
Agent Association encourages support for this concept.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked for a motion to move the bill.
4:15:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that this is one of the rare
moments that we can actually keep our campaign promises to
deregulating government. This is really a good thing and
positive.
4:16:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report CSHB 216 [version 24-
LS0349\Y, Bullock, 3/31/05] out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 216(L&C) was reported from the House Labor
and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 180-WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the final order of business would
be HB 180. He stated that this bill was created by the
Governor's people and it has been heard and testified on many
people, from industry, insurance, medical groups, individuals,
and workers' compensation groups. He revealed that people have
ranged in their responses to the bill from various extremes,
which included suggestions to 'kill the bill', 'hold the bill',
and 'move it' and make it a work in progress. He then stated
that they needed to begin going through the bill section by
section.
4:18:09 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON obviated the fact that they had already allowed
several days of public testimony and if they were going to get
through the bill, they would have to start going through the
bill section by section. He acknowledged the fact that there is
an ad hoc committee, but this group has not brought anything to
the table at this point. Mentioning that he did not believe
that the Governor had created a perfect bill, he then said if
the committee waited until this ad hoc group brought something
to the table after speaking to the Governor, thus, deferring
committee opinion until such time, the committee, he feels,
would not be doing their job.
CHAIR ANDERSON then announced that he first wanted to go through
the ad hoc bill, but had not had it formally drafted. The
substance of it is known, but at this point he indicated that he
would like to guide the committee through the Governors bill and
talk about each section. He hoped that the easiest way to deal
with this problem would be to go through the bill section by
section, and make it a point to listen to each committee member
and their comments, as they apply their own background and
industries.
4:19:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that the committee had already
heard the commissioner of insurance talk about the previous bill
and how she had been working with stakeholders and how, at the
end, there was a really good bill. She indicated that she
understood that the Governor was working with the stakeholders
and thought that the committee should give it a couple of days
and see if they have crafted a good bill and see what they have
come up with.
4:20:11 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON explained that this was an interesting idea but
that there was two months of conversation that had already taken
place between the two parties and that it needed to move faster
than this.
4:20:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that in his meeting with the
leadership group that meets with the Governor, it was made clear
to him that progress was being made with the discussions, though
he could not say if any agreement was forthcoming. He then said
that there were several points that needed to be made here
concerning the discussions. First, there is no expectation that
complete agreement will be made. There will be, on the one
hand, sections that may be agreed on conceptually.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG then stated that second, the people that
make up the ad hoc committee will not be available soon since
they will be moving on to their various endeavors. He pointed
out that waiting for these individuals to finish their work is
unrealistic given the time that it takes and has taken.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG followed this by stating that third, it
is the duty and obligation of the committee and the legislature
need to write the bill. He said that they should not have to
wait for the ad hoc committee to reconvene to make a decision.
The committee has a bill before it and if people have objections
to sections of the bill they need to come forward and object and
put this on public record. They need to be recognized for their
views and the committee needs to move forward.
4:21:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said that he wanted to make the observation
that the chairman had said that people who are in the committee
have their associations with industry, but he wanted to clarify
this by suggesting that the only association that the
Representative should have is with the constituents.
4:22:25 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON clarified that this comment referred to our
individual philosophies. The chair then asked Representative
Rokeberg what his opinion was concerning this type of sectional
analysis.
4:23:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered that this was acceptable and
that the Department of Labor and Workforce Development has
provided a sectional. He then asked that another copy be given
to him, since he could not find the analysis in the huge amount
of paperwork that has accumulated since the bill was introduced.
4:23:18 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON then said that the committee aide would make sure
that he got another copy this meeting, specifically the three
page document that provided and overview of the original bill.
He then addressed the committee and said that he wanted to make
sure that the committee understood that it was important to
voice their concerns, even if they do not like any section. He
emphatically stated that it was important to get their opinions
on the record, rather than waiting.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that the problems are that fact
that given the amount of testimony given already on the record,
and the opinions of people that clearly show that we need to
create a bill [that is acceptable to all parties].
4:24:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD mentioned that he did have a sectional
analysis of HB 180 and he wanted to make sure that everyone was
on the same page.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked that a brief at ease be taken so that the
committee could put their packets together in a more convenient
manner.
[At ease between 4:24:42 PM and 4:27:11 PM.]
4:27:1 3 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the version of the analysis that
needed to be used was the document that was entitled "Summary of
HB 180 Prepared for House Labor and Commerce Committee",
prepared by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development,
and dated March 14, 2005.
4:27:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked that he receive a flow chart
from the Department and asked that this be used as well in the
discussion.
4:29:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that she wanted to make sure that the
committee were dealing with bill numbered 24-GH1112\A.
CHAIR ANDERSON again stipulated that he wanted to committee to
seriously go through the bill section by section and give their
feedback judiciously and without hesitancy. He indicated that
they were not going to rush through this and that he wanted to
hear people's points of views and hear the adamant objections
that the committee members have given to the bill thus far.
4:29:44 PM
PAUL LISANKIE, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development, pointed out for the
committee that there are 6 pages of text that are summaries of
the changes created by the Department. [These changes fall
under 6 categories that address concerns held by several parties
to the bill. These 6 pages are interspersed between the pages
holding the Bill Sections in question.]
[Brief at-ease from 4:30:37 to 4:31:01]
4:31:01 PM
MR. LISANKIE stated again that there are 6 pages of summary
pages in total. Each page is, in and of itself, a chapter [This
Chapter addresses a theme important to the discussion of the
bill. This chapter heading is followed by the bill section
pages that are relevant to the particular chapter subject.] He
gave an example using page one, and he said that first section
being discussed under that chapter heading was Section 21 and
that particular page of the bill is the next page in the
sectional analysis. He then apologized for the package
disorganization and said that he was trying to create something
that made sectional analysis easier.
4:32:20 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON said that he could see how this was being put
together and said that it would make the task at hand much
easier.
4:32:39 PM
MR. LISANKIE introduced the Sectional Analysis by stating that
the first chapter dealt with protecting workers' benefits and
jobs and that he would begin by looking at Section 21. This
section of the bill is important change which would empower the
division director that confirmed that the employer failed to
have the legally required workers' compensation insurance. The
is a way to do this now but it takes a longer time. In the
interim, a person can be injured while this investigation takes
place. He then said that step one of this process requires the
employer to prove they have insurance. There will an informal
inquiry and the employer is given one more chance to show that
they have insurance. One way, he said, this could happen would
be to have their insurance broker call the board and show proof
that insurance policies were written and are current. He then
said that they are not interested in shutting a business down if
they simply have a paperwork problem. The whole intent is to
give them an opportunity to show that they have the insurance.
4:35:30 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON reiterated that the previous discussion was
regarding Section 21 of HB 180, found on page 16.
4:35:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that this was one of our (his
party) concerns. He explained that many times a company will
have workers' compensation insurance but it will only be for a
general labor, rather than pipe fitting or iron workers, since
they are higher rates. This is a problem, since this is not
proper insurance. However, what we believe is fraud, can be
seen also as a company taking insurance for what they require
[and not what the company might need]. One of our biggest
concerns was whether you could just shut these individuals down.
4:36:57 PM
MR. LISANKIE believed that the fraud of willingly misclassifying
your workforce would require a more in-depth inquiry.
MR. LISANKIE then restated the view by saying that this bill
refers to a basic investigation [of whether someone has or does
not have insurance] and that the willful act of misclassifying
your workforce is beyond the scope of this [proposed] immediate
shutdown.
4:37:42 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON then asked for an example.
4:37:46 PM
MR. LISANKIE stated that if one of his investigators got a tip
and went to investigate a possible situation where someone flat
out does not have insurance, they do a inquiry and if they do
not have insurance and cannot provide proof that they do, then
they are shut down immediately.
4:38:20 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON furthers this example by stating that a mom and
pop burger joint is investigated and shown to be without
insurance, they are shut down. He then asked for confirmation
of his understanding.
4:38:30 PM
MR. LISANKIE replied that this was correct. However, in
referring to Representative Crawford's question, he said that
there was no doubt that a construction company trying to save
money on your insurance bill by willfully misclassifying their
workforce was not legal and would be dealt with by governing
statutes not covered in section 21.
4:38:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD continued his question by stating that
his membership with the construction industry, the AGC, and the
workers involved in construction, has given him some concern and
that he was worried about under insured workplaces and employers
within his industry misclassifying their workforce.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked why this was not in the ad hoc
bill if he was concerned about this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated that there is an ad hoc bill, it
was turned into the governor, but it has not been put forward.
CHAIR ANDERSON explained that Representative Rokeberg recognizes
that Representative Crawford supports the ad hoc bill but he is
not asking where the bill is but instead, was wondering where
Representative Crawford's concern is verbalized in the bill.
4:39:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD firmly stated that he believed that the
committee was talking about the House Bill [and the sectional
analysis] not the ad hoc bill. He then stated for
Representative Rokeberg, that his concern about House Bill 180,
was that the issue of the classification of workers be
addressed.
4:40:27 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON then said that the real issue behind his concern
and Representative Rokeberg's concern was that he had introduced
himself as "we" instead of using a singular "I or myself" and
this prompted a concern about appropriate language. He then
stated that in the beginning he had asked that the
Representatives not hide behind affiliation but represent their
own views and concerns. Furthermore, the people in this
committee are all different individuals and have their own
viewpoints.
4:40:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD finally stated that his individual
concern is that this bill is deficient because it does not
address this problem.
4:41:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT interjects that Representative Crawford's
comments were certainly valid, and that further, when a workers'
compensation claim has been filed and that individual has been
misclassified, the question is whether the benefits of that
individual would be disturbed.
4:41:35 PM
MR. LISANKIE stated that there would be detrimental effect on
premiums and that they would get their full benefits. He then
stated that they are not basing their benefits on premiums that
were set up legally or illegally, or somewhere in between.
4:42:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked what happens today when someone is
not paying the correct premium. He suggested that what he would
like to make sure that each of the people that are employing
people in an industry pay the proper premium upfront. That way
everyone in that industry pays a lower rate. This cannot happen
now, since while the honest employers are paying the higher rate
(approximately 88 dollars to every hundred paid out), the
dishonest employers are paying the low rate (approximately 24
dollars to every hundred dollars) by misclassifying his workers.
4:43:32 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that he thoroughly understood where the
Representative was coming from and then, talking to Mr.
Lisankie, said that he understood the Representative's concern,
but that Section 21 was addressing something different.
4:43:53 PM
MR. LISANKIE stated that no, he did want to assure the
Representative that Section 21 addressed his concern, because it
simply wasn't about that concern.
4:44:15 PM
MR. LISANKIE indicated that what really haunts me is a person
like Mr. Flock who gets hurt and because of the system, and his
particular situation, there is no available insurance and there
is no one that can help him.
4:44:21 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON said that that his unfortunate situation is due
to the exact situation we are dealing with right now. He
suggested that if someone had checked his [Mr. Flock's]
employer's lack of insurance and the computer records, this
could have been stopped before he found himself without any
assistance.
4:44:35 PM
MR. LISANKIE responded hesitantly that it might be the case, but
that this kind of thing does not get reported all the time.
4:44:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD pointed out that his concern was that
the act of misclassification in insurance be an infringement,
and that it be covered, so that they get shut down immediately.
4:45:03 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if there were language that could be put in
that would cover this.
4:45:12 PM
MR. LISANKIE stated that he would rather prefer to defer to Ms.
Hall, who is at the meeting.
4:45:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he agreed with the Chair,
that this is another topic.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that he believed that this issue is
best addressed in this section of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered that what he believed that the
committee should look at this as if there is anything wrong with
the existing language. If we to make any progress at all then
the committee say that [Section 21] is good but that it does not
go far enough. He then said that they should then work on
identifying an amendment that is satisfying.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that he could not have said it
better himself.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said that he thought that this was what was
being sought after before.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG then stated that the real question
that should be asked is if this issue is being addressed
anywhere in the bill.
4:46:35 PM
MR. LISANKIE made it clear that it is currently illegal to
misclassify employees; this is in Section 250 of the Statute.
The question is how to enforce this. Section 21 was designed
with total non-compliance in mind and shutting down people who
simply do not have the insurance. The issue of how workers are
classified is a more complicated one and one not easily dealt
with using the proposed rule changes in Section 21.
4:48:05 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON said that he cannot be more succinct in saying
that Section 21 does not cover this type of infringement.
4:48:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD indicated that he did indeed answer it
perfectly. However, the way this is written it doesn't cover
and I want to make sure it is covered. He then said that he
wants the same ability to shut someone down that has
misclassified his employees. It may be more complicated, but
this power needs to be in his arsenal.
4:49:16 PM
LINDA HALL, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development, stated that under
current law it is considered premium fraud under insurance
regulations and illegal under the workers' compensation
regulations. The investigators who look into fraud do not have
this type of power [to shut businesses down]. She indicated
that her group has more investigators in the field than Mr.
Lisankie and the Division of Workers' Compensation. She pointed
out that they can pursue criminal charges against someone that
willfully misclassifies their workers, but currently, her group
cannot shut their businesses down. She added that this is a
penalty phase that could be added if the committee decided that
it was appropriate.
4:50:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD exhibited an example of a man they had
tried to shut down this year, or at least charged the
appropriate rates for his work crew, who had a man actually die
on the job. It was not brought out until later that according
to his job classification, he was classified as a general
laborer when he was actually working as an ironworker. This is
why, he said, I want to be able to shut these people down and
provide a healthier and safer place to work.
4:51:25 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that though he agreed wholeheartedly
about this issue, the debate is taking time away from the long
analysis, and he hoped that people were not being purposely
dilatory. He then indicated that he would be looking into the
issue and try to figure out a way to get it into an amendment.
However, he said, Mr. Lisankie has said many times, that this
particular section does not apply to the issue being debate. He
ended by stating that the committee had spent 15 minutes on a
fairly simple section and that the committee needed to move on.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that he and others to the
left of the chair have been patiently waiting to talk. He
explained that when saying "we" he himself meant that it
referred to "us" and our responsibility to the people and the
contractors here in this state to make sure that some "mom and
pop burger joint" from Phoenix Arizona doesn't bid on a bridge
job, get the job, and then get insurance rates that cover only
burger workers, all the while "pops ironworkers" fails to get
the job and would have had to have paid the nominal fee
associated with insuring ironworkers.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG then said that a group that has
committed misclassification on their insurance premiums is still
eligible for compensation. He then asked what would happen to
the worker who files for a claim and the state replies that they
are not an ironworker but work as a burger worker instead. For
the person that is injured, the process must be seamless [and
have their interests in mind, not just penalization of the
employer through the employee].
4:53:19 PM
MS. HALL pointed out that the insurance policy is not
classification specific. Workers' compensation insurance
stipulates that it will cover benefits that are required by the
statutes. If the employee is injured, he will receive benefits
regardless if the employer has misclassified himself. She then
said [she indicates that she is editorializing] that situations
like what the Representatives are talking about do occur. She
indicated that many people have talked to her about it. Giving
an example of a truck driver classified as an office worker, she
said that he still is eligible for benefits. The board will
retroactively charge the employer directly for the infringement
and the employee's benefit coverage is not impacted.
4:54:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if there was anything in here
that would say that an insurer has to notify the Division if
there is significant change [in a policy holders account]. He
further explained that what he is worried about is a situation
where an employer is approached by the Division about their
workers' compensation insurance and after they show proof, they
then cancel the insurance.
4:55:57 PM
MR. LISANKIE answered that the insurance company is required to
give cancellation notice of businesses to the Division. The
cancellation does not go into affect until after a number of
days has past.
4:56:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX indicated that from her experience in
insurance law, if one gets an insurance policy fraudulently the
insurance company can generally void coverage. She then asked
if there was something like this that pertains to workers'
compensation.
4:56:46 PM
MS. HALL answered that she did not know if this is unequivocal.
Normally, to cancel a policy for insurance fraud, you have to
give notice. She then said that she knew of only one type of
insurance policy that can retroactively cancelled and that would
be marine coverage where there is a requirement for survey which
is not completed or is falsified and that being fraudulent, the
insurance companies can retroactively cancel policies. However,
there still needs to be notification.
4:57:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX concurred that in the maritime industry,
which she has dealt with before as a lawyer, she knew that even
a negligent misrepresentation will vitiate coverage. She
indicated that this is the difference with maritime law. On
land, she said, a willful case of misrepresentation can even
result in retroactive cancellation. She then asked what would
happen if someone were going out of business and couldn't pay
their premium.
4:58:33 PM
MS. HALL answered that she has never seen this before and would
do more research. She said that it [going out of business]
doesn't negate the employer's liability to have insurance. She
then said that the insurance company provides coverage for this
event and the employer still has the requirement. She then said
that she would do more research on this topic.
4:59:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG commented that this situation had
occurred to someone that had contacted him in his office and
that this person, through negligence on his part, [he got caught
in something] lost his insurance.
MS. HALL then asked if this was workers' compensation, since
maritime policy is different from land policy, as Representative
Ledoux pointed out.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG then said that there was fraud
involved and a worker was just caught in the middle.
4:59:43 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON said that he believed that he had been pretty
liberal about giving time and analysis to these discussions
concerning misrepresentation and misclassification of employees
and that this topic of Representative Crawford's is something
that needs to be looked at. It has been indicated by both Ms.
Hall and Mr. Lisankie that this section is not something that is
germane to this discussion topic. He stated firmly that he
wanted to revisit this issue and see if they could fit it in
some other place.
5:00:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD firmly stated that he was very
frustrated at the Chair for not characterizing the bill fairly.
He said that the Chair continued stating that "this doesn't
apply", and this is not the case, he said. This bill does not
address the issue which in his mind is applicable to the bill.
CHAIR ANDERSON then interjected and asked the Representative how
many more times he wanted it be said that "it does not address
what [he is] talking about".
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD insisted that this Section 21 was the
section in which it should apply. This section is deficient.
He indicated that there is no ambiguity here and that he
believed that he and the rest of group present were discussing
something that was germane to discussion.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked that the Representative supply the
committee with language immediately that would be sufficient in
his eyes to amend the deficiency.
5:01:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN indicated that he had talked with
Representative Crawford on the issue and had a conceptual
amendment that he wanted to read to the committee:
If an employer is determined to roughly misclassify an
employee, the director may issue an immediate stop
order to the employer.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that he would work with Mr. Lisankie on
this paragraph.
CHAIR ANDERSON then stated that it seemed that Representative
Lynn understood where Representative Crawford was coming from
and that this would be used to craft an amendment.
5:02:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD then adds that it should also include
something that empowers the board to fine the employers of
uninsured or misclassified employers up to a 1000 dollars day
per employee.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD then stated that for the record, he is
not intending on holding up the process here or the committee,
but as he insisted earlier, this is a crucial part of what he
was trying to convey today. This issue is the same issue that
has been on my mind and there has been no deviation from it.
5:03:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN withdraw the amendment, although he feels it
was not properly introduced into the committee discussion. He
then said that he could offer it later at another hearing.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that this suggested conceptual
amendment sounded good and asked Representative Lynn to work on
this following the meeting and work on the verbiage and then
craft the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he would look at it this weekend.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked the Chair to allow him a drafter
[from legal services] to make sure it's done correctly.
CHAIR ANDERSON chided the Representative and said that this was
something that needed to have been done weeks earlier, when the
bill was first heard and during the subsequent weeks of public
testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD indicated that he had not received the
documents that they were reviewing until today.
CHAIR ANDERSON said that all the members of the committee
received the bill packet six weeks prior to this discussion and
if there was anything that you found needed to be added, this
needed to be done earlier, and not now when the committee is
summing up the bill and you are not willing to give it to the
committee now, but instead are asking to give it later. This,
he said, may be delaying the bill.
5:04:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN explained to the chair that the whole
purpose behind having a committee is to have all the people
focus their ideas where we hear various points of view and
opinions.
5:05:11 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON stated for clarification that there has been
three public testimonies. This is no longer opinion time. We
now have the Division Director here giving step-by-step
summation of the bill being moved out. He then adds that this is
probably something that your staff should have done weeks ago.
5:05:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that frankly, if someone were
wanting to deal with this, and they had burning issues with the
proposed bill, they should have added it to the ad hoc bill. He
then announced that as far as he knew, this subject was never
even brought up to the legislature by the ad hoc committee. He
said that he really wanted to understand it and if there is a
real desire to be cooperative and move legislation then this
issue should have been dealt with then.
5:06:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD indicated that he brought this up in
last years deliberations. He then said that he wanted to ask if
the language used in the presented bill being discussed now
would give him the power [allow him to shut down businesses and
employers who do not abide by the insurance rules]. If not,
then he said he was ready to do an amendment, however, he was
not ready to do it right then since he would to do this
correctly. He then said to the chair that since it was his
committee he could forge ahead if that was his desire.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD ended by stating that the chair asked
for the committee's concerns and this was his concern.
5:07:04 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON said he did appreciate his concern and it sounds
like the whole committee supports what Representative Crawford
is saying. From a standpoint of time though, he wished that his
ideas could be put forth into an amendment that could be given
to the committee today, rather than wait for a bill drafter to
come back in three days.
5:07:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked that the committee please move
along since it was obvious to him that there was no way they
were going to be able to get through the entire summary.
5:07:40 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON said that he agreed. He then asked to move on to
the second part of Section 21 that deals with the 1000 dollar a
day fine.
5:08:01 PM
MR. LISANKIE said that this is an adjunct tool for us to detect
when an employer drops and begins insurance only when they have
been detected. This fine gets their attention when this occurs.
Right now, all the Division can do is issue an order to the
Board of insurance to submit a stop order to make them cease
operating. The time it takes to get a hearing allows the
employer to obtain ["temporary"] insurance which effectively
makes the stop order obsolete. The bill now allows the Board to
say that though they have insurance at the time of the hearing,
they did not have it for a period of time before the hearing.
The Board and Division can now announce to the employer that
they are facing a fine of up to $1000 a day.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if this was acceptable to the committee and
if anyone had any concerns about the section.
5:09:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that he would like to know if
members of the committee or members of organized labor have any
problems with the way Section 21 is written. He then said that
he really appreciated what Representative Crawford has said and
understand what he is trying to do, which is add more to cover a
perceived deficiency. However, to make progress, is to
understand why one would have a problem with the language. He
then indicated that he understood why Representative Crawford
felt the way he did about adding to the section. However, he
stipulated that consensus would never be made until progress is
made in understanding if this change is agreeable with everyone.
5:09:57 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if anyone has a problem with Section 21 and
if they did to speak now and immediately tell him where and what
needed to be changed. He then iterated that they had spent 45
minutes on one section.
5:10:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG expressed major concern the way the
meeting and questioning have been dealt with and said that "[he]
likes to ask questions" and that "this was where we were
supposed to be asking questions".
CHAIR ANDERSON said that was correct, insofar as we are talking
about Section 21.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG then asked how this proposal compares
to the current statute.
5:10:4 8 PM
MR. LISANKIE stated that there is no penalty phase in the
current statute for not having insurance. The only fine is one
that is criminal and this is a lot more difficult to get
accomplished.
5:11:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated again for the record that Section
21 is wrong because it doesn't address misclassification. She
then said that this is tantamount to not having insurance and
it's cheating the honest employers.
5:12:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Lisankie if he had read the ad
hoc committee bill and did they speak about the issue that
Representative Crawford is speaking about concerning Section 21.
MR. LISANKIE indicated that thought he had read the bill, and
upon reflection, he could say that it was very close but not the
exact same wording.
5:13:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that it if this is a good
suggestion then it doesn't matter if its in the ad hoc
suggestions or not.
5:13:40 PM
MR. LISANKIE stated that Section 22 is a corollary that is
designed to receive those fines that we have the power to
enforce against employers that were underinsured or uninsured.
MR. LISANKIE then stated that these funds would be redirected to
newly created "benefits guarantee fund" that would be permitted
to use the fines that were paid into the fund to pay the actual
claims that came from injured employees whose employers were
uninsured or failed to pay. He then said that in no way would
there be a free ride. If pressing them is next to impossible,
like was the case with Mr. Flock, then there must be a way to
get payment. The fund will circumvent the lack of payment by
the employer and get the employee the help with injuries that
they need. The fund would then continue to take money from the
employer to replenish the fund
5:15:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said that outside of HB 180 would this
fund be outside the "budget sweep" [as provided for in the
Alaska State Constitution, Article IX] at the end of the year,
or would this be like the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund
(CBRF) sweep where they bring in all funds that are out there.
MR. LISANKIE stated that it does not lapse.
5:16:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that this is not guaranteed to the
worker who is working for an employer who is working for an
uninsured employer, but instead it is only there if there is
enough money in the fund to do this.
MR. LISANKIE stated that statement is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX followed this up by asking how much
Section 22 of HB 180 would have enabled your group to collect
for the fund.
MR. LISANKIE stated that they did take a look at it to see how
many uninsured employers were detected and how many people
worked for them and then if you do the math, you can figure out
what the amount would be. He then said he would have to get
back to the committee on the number- though he could say that
the year before, they caught 2200 businesses without proper
insurance. The fine amount of $1000 is meant to be a sliding
scale.
5:18:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there would be enough collected
through fines to accomplish the intended goal.
MR. LISANKIE stated that the division is not interested in
having a huge guaranteed fund. The goal, he said, is to have no
uninsured employers.
5:19:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that he does have some reservations
about the establishment of this fund. He expounded by stating
that the mere existence of the fund is wrong in that it leaves
it open for demand that will result in it reaching for another
source to fund it in future legislations. He gives one such
example with the Freemont Case.
5:21:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that one of the practices that
happen with small contractors is that they hire extra help and
these people are told to get their own business licenses which
requires them to pay their own insurance, which they don't.
When they get hurt, they turn to the company which denies them
since they are a "supposed" independent contractor.
5:22:21 PM
MR. LISANKIE the supposed independent contractor who gets hurt
and is found to be an actual employee would have rights to
recover benefits and help from the employer who gave them this
poor advice. If the company did not have insurance they would
be an injured worker who didn't have recourse against the
company.
5:23:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD gave an example of Century Construction
and their workers. He said that this situation happened to them
and the company reacted by going out of the state and declared
themselves insolvent. The workers were left with no insurance.
The other example was if the workers were determined not to be
employees but they were still hurt.
5:24:01 PM
MR. LISANKIE said that if the company said that they were an
employee they would to workers' compensation, but if they were
determined to be a independent contractor they would have to
provide their own insurance or they have no recourse.
5:24:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that he had a real problem
with the section, especially page 18, line 4, where it says that
legal expenses are going to be paid as well. He said that he
had a problem here where the fund is being used to pay lawyers
in addition to paying medical expenses and retraining costs,
since there is so little money in the fund.
MR. LISANKIE expressed confirmation on the part of the
Representative and said that the drafting was done with the
intention of administrating to a claim and not for outside legal
expenses.
5:26:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what would happen if these were only
legal expenses with respect to the funds legal expenses. She
pointed out that in subparagraph (F), there is a person hired to
adjust claims against the fund. She then said that if a claim
is contriverted, then if there is a lawyer hired at the end of
the day, the insured pays those fees for that attorney. If this
were changed to a situation where the fund didn't pay the
attorney fees, she asked what would happen to that injured
persons right to hire an attorney for their claim.
5:27:35 PM
MR. LISANKIE said that he understood her point but there is only
so much good you can do here when you have a limited amount of
money. He then indicated that he didn't believe it was intended
by the drafters that it was there was an expectation to pay the
benefits that they would ordinarily not receive.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that she sees that the problems are
that some claims are contriverted correctly and others not.
There would be no recourse for these people, if you don't allow
any attorney fees.
MR. LISANKIE then said that the expectation on anyone sitting as
a purser to the fund paying out anything other than what they
thought was a legitimate amount. If that person disagreed with
this decision, they would not be given funds to fight this
decision with money from the same fund.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX indicated that that the problem with this
is that workers' compensation law makes it a crime for an
attorney to take funds from a private claim. They have to get
their money from a fund.
MR. LISANKIE said that it is illegal to take money to represent
someone without prior approval from the board, so it's not
illegal to pay if the board says its okay.
5:30:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT, referring to page 18, which refers to
monies being deposited into the Guaranteed Fund, and asked if
the amount is insufficient to cover the claims drawn against the
Guaranteed Fund, would there be a chance that the Division might
come to the legislature at a later date to ask for more funds to
assist in paying those unpaid claims.
MR. LISANKIE said that this is not what he envisioned when he
was assisting in the writing of this draft.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT then asked what other appropriations might
there be.
MR. LISANKIE indicated that he did not know. He then pointed
out that sub-section E does point out that if the fund runs out
of sufficient funds to cover claims, the fund shall be
replenished before the claims are settled.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT then said that by going to the legislature
to do this, the monies would be appropriated and the fund
replenished. However, he indicated, this is precisely what I am
getting at, which is if a future legislature would be asked for
money to replenish the fund. More specifically, what types of
funds would be appropriated to the Guaranteed Fund and if the
Legislature is, from time to time, to be asked to give money to
this fund, then this particular nuance needs to be written into
the bill.
5:33:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that in regards to Representative
Ledoux's point, if subsection (c) and (d) are the qualifying
sections that define how anyone makes a claim on the fund, he
stated that the fund itself can assert the same defense itself
as an insured employer. He then asked how the claimant have
access to the same legal counsel if this is the case. He
indicated that the fund did not look like it was going to have a
lot of money. He then pointed out for the committee that if
these are the elements that qualify/not qualify someone for the
fund, and you then assert some of these issues against the
claimant, he then asked how it is possible to have legal counsel
given to the claimant as well.
[HB 180 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:35:15 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|