02/04/2002 03:15 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 4, 2002
3:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Pete Kott
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 274
"An Act relating to workers' compensation; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 274(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 298
"An Act relating to legislative approval of certain land leases
by the Alaska Railroad Corporation."
- MOVED CSHB 298(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 291
"An Act relating to the requirements for obtaining a residential
contractor endorsement."
- MOVED CSHB 291(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 274
SHORT TITLE:EXPEDITED WORKERS' COMPENSATION HEARING
SPONSOR: REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
05/08/01 1712 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/08/01 1712 (H) L&C
02/04/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 298
SHORT TITLE:LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL OF RAILROAD LEASES
SPONSOR: REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1952 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/02
01/14/02 1952 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1952 (H) TRA, L&C
01/31/02 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/31/02 (H) Moved CSHB 298(TRA) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(TRA)
02/01/02 2110 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) NT 6DP
02/01/02 2110 (H) DP:MASEK, KOOKESH, SCALZI,
OGAN,
02/01/02 2110 (H) WILSON, KOHRING
02/01/02 2110 (H) FN1: ZERO(CED)
02/04/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 291
SHORT TITLE:LICENSING OF RESIDENTIAL CONTRACTORS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MEYER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1951 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/02
01/14/02 1951 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1951 (H) L&C
02/04/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 274.
PAUL GROSSI, Director
Division of Workers' Compensation
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
PO Box 25512
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5512
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the Division of Workers'
Compensation supports HB 274; answered questions.
KERWIN TSCHETTER
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 274, explaining his
problems with workers' compensation.
ED MEYER
841 9th Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 274, characterizing it as
"good as far as it goes."
BARBARA BECKMAN
3321 North Wyoming Drive
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that HB 274 is much-needed
legislation.
ERIC BECKMAN
3321 North Wyoming Drive
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 274.
CINDY MAEL
PO Box 240912
Anchorage, Alaska 99524
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 274.
GEORGE RODRIGUES
819 West 76th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 274, emphasizing the need
for injured workers to be heard in a timely manner.
DAVID TWEDEN
1403 West 40th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 274, recounting his own
experience.
DIANE TWEDEN
1403 West 40th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 274, providing more
information on her husband's situation.
FLOYD L. OBERG
2306 Roosevelt Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 274, asking for more
protection for injured workers.
BARBARA WILLIAMS
Alaska Injured Workers Alliance
PO Box 101093
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 274, asking that it be
strengthened to protect workers.
MARIA RAMIREZ
1200 West Dimond, Number 1207
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 274 on behalf of George
Ramirez, relating his problems with lack of information on his
case.
TINA EDMONDSON
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 374, expressed
concerns with regard to the independent medical examiners.
DEBBIE PIEPLOW
PO Box 141846
Anchorage, Alaska 99514
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 274.
AMANDA PIEPLOW
PO Box 141846
Anchorage, Alaska 99514
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 274.
WENDY LINDSKOOG
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC)
PO Box 107500
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7500
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 298 on behalf
of ARRC, which had requested the legislation.
KAREN MORRISSEY
Alaska Railroad Corporation
Department of Community & Economic Development
PO Box 107500
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7500
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 298.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community & Economic Development
PO Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 291.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-10, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:15 p.m.
Representatives Murkowski, Meyer, Crawford, and Hayes were
present at the call to order. Representative Rokeberg arrived
as the meeting was in progress. Representative Halcro was
excused.
HB 274-EXPEDITED WORKERS' COMPENSATION HEARING
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced the first order of business, HOUSE
BILL NO. 274, An Act relating to workers' compensation; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0110
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) [version 22-LS0983\J, Ford, 2/4/02] as the
working document.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that Version J was adopted.
Number 0124
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HB 274, explained that the bill would do two things: allow
for expedited hearings for workers' compensation cases, and ask
that doctors who perform the evaluations be licensed in Alaska.
Number 0198
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked what would happen if the examination were
to take place outside of Alaska. She said she gathers that
where the exam takes place is important.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said in [Version J], page 1, line 11, the
wording states "[in which] the examination occurs". The
intention is that if the examination occurs in Alaska, the
physician must be licensed in Alaska. If the exam occurs in
another state, the physician must be licensed accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said HB 274 also aims to expedite
[workers' compensation] hearings. Many times, people who are
injured must go through an appeals process, while the injury
does not stop; injuries have been exacerbated from that. The
intent is to get a hearing sooner if there is a medical need.
This gives the [Alaska Workers' Compensation Board] the language
to do so. The board may, based on an appeal, schedule a
hearing, but doesn't have to. Referring to page 2 [lines 25-
26], he noted that [the board or the board's designee] can
determine whether the claim involves an issue of medical
treatment and an expedited hearing is necessary to avoid
physical harm.
Number 0380
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked what had precipitated the introduction of
HB 274.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioned routine work in the office and
said that several constituents have come to him. He added:
Some of them have joined themselves to organizations
which have other agendas than what I might have. But,
certainly, this point was brought up, over and over
again. So I think that ... it was a good fix. This
does not fix everything that all of my friends want,
believe me. But I think it's a move in the right
direction. It's something that we can do. It makes
it very clear. ... It was constituent work that
brought this to light.
Number 0437j
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD noted that in Section 2, line 24, the
word "may" is used. He asked why that is, when HB 274 is trying
to get expedited hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that there is a prioritization
process that the board deals with, and this provides a tool to
do that. There probably are going to be appeals where
discretion is needed; that is why he'd believed there should be
discretion there, instead of a directive.
Number 0509
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said it seems that if the board's
designee determines that the claim involves an issue, then that
would be reason to go ahead with it.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that Representative Crawford's
point was well taken. Representative Coghill said it is a
policy call as to whether, once the board makes a decision, it
should then become a directive. He said he'd hoped to start
with having these as [possible] tools, leaving as much
discretion as he could, because there are times when it is kind
of a check and balance.
Number 0570
CHAIR MURKOWSKI offered that it appears the board may schedule
the hearing if it determines that it involves an issue of
medical treatment and that the expedited hearing is necessary to
avoid physical harm. There could be a situation in which there
is a determination that yes, this revolves around an issue of
medical treatment, but that a delay won't compromise the
physical condition of the employee. This is when the board
would have discretion regarding whether to put the case on an
expedited or routine basis. She asked whether she was reading
it correctly.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL deferred to Mr. Grossi, suggesting it
connects to several other issues.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if anyone else had questions of
Representative Coghill before Mr. Grossi testified.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the written sponsor
statement and mentioned that HB 274 would require any physician
conducting the examination in Alaska to be licensed to practice
in Alaska. He asked if it would be permissible for an employer
to select a physician outside of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said yes, provided that the examination
took place outside of Alaska. He directed attention to page 1,
line 11, where it says the physician must be licensed in the
state where the examination occurs.
Number 0705
PAUL GROSSI, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), first
addressed why "may" was used instead of "shall". He said the
main reason is that everyone believes his/her own case is the
most important, and should be prioritized [accordingly]. This
language provides a method of [prioritizing] and putting one
case in front of another case. Although it shouldn't be done
all the time, for those cases where it is needed - such as when
a person needs the treatment in order to prevent physical harm -
this authority will be utilized.
Number 0820
MR. GROSSI, in response to a question from Chair Murkowski, said
currently one case can jump in front of another, but there is
the question of whether "we" have authority to do so. With the
bill, the authority is clearly there. Regarding where an exam
occurs, he said this has always been a bit of a conflict
[between Alaska] statute and the Division of Occupational
Licensing; the latter says [a doctor] must be licensed for
treatment in the state. He noted that, in fact, there have been
complaints after doctors from other states have been brought in
and then done an examination. Mr. Grossi said [HB 274] would
clarify that and conform better to the Division of Occupational
Licensing's requirements.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Grossi if his division is in support
of HB 274.
MR. GROSSI said the Division of Workers' Compensation is in
support of HB 274.
Number 0930
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked how a doctor becomes licensed in
Alaska.
MR. GROSSI said he didn't have the expertise to answer the
question. He offered to get that information.
Number 1000
KERWIN TSCHETTER testified via teleconference. He began by
saying that the employers and the insurance companies seem to
want to know everything about the injured workers, including
prior medical information. Although he didn't have a problem
with that, he objected that information regarding the medical
decision process wasn't being relayed to the injured worker.
MR. TSCHETTER said he'd presented his personal case in front of
Mr. Grossi; the Division of Insurance; the Division of Workers'
Compensation; and former Governor Knowles' secretary, Elizabeth
Roberts (ph). He said he'd asked them to look at the
information he'd presented and to get in touch with him, with no
success. Mr. Tschetter expressed frustration with the process,
saying he didn't think his own case was "strictly anecdotal."
He said he thinks many other Alaskans who are injured have
similar circumstances.
MR. TSCHETTER recounted how in July 1996, on the first day of a
new job, he'd slipped and twisted his leg and felt a "rip go up
my leg and a pop below the knee." He said he was referred by
the company to a clinic in Anchorage, but the doctor failed to
take an X-ray and sent him back to work with a broken leg. He
said he'd worked another week with a broken leg.
Number 1208
MR. TSCHETTER expressed frustration that he couldn't get
information regarding his case from anyone. He went back to the
doctor the following week, and an X-ray showed the leg was
broken below the knee. He was told he would need surgery to pin
the ankle and would require a cast. He was referred to a
surgeon in Anchorage who took some more X-rays and concurred
with the diagnosis. Mr. Tschetter had asked if he could be
referred to a doctor in Fairbanks for the surgery. He said the
doctor in Fairbanks had told him that surgery was not indicated,
and that the doctor was sending him back to work.
MR. TSCHETTER said he'd tried calling the nurse assigned to him
by the insurance company, and was told he wasn't entitled to
another medical opinion. He was told he could appeal the
decision to the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board, but that
[the board] would contest the issue until it "would be moot."
He added, "I found out that in California, where this company
resides, that the doctors were subject to receiving a financial
incentive for minimizing the medical care."
Number 1320
MR. TSCHETTER reported that he'd called the first doctor's
clinic in Anchorage and asked why an X-ray was not taken on the
first visit; he was told the insurers didn't want to pay for the
diagnostic test if it turned out negative. He said he was sent
to work twice with a broken leg. He remarked, "To this day, the
bone was left to heal by itself. The only medical treatment
that I've had for that injury is that I was sent back to work
with a splint the second time." He asked whether this bothers
anybody.
MR. TSCHETTER emphasized that the medical report from the second
doctor not only changed the description of his injury, but also
changed the description to say that the injury had occurred
previously. No one told him there was a change in the medical
report, for almost two years. No one told him there was a
problem with the claim. He concluded with the following point:
"If you're not given specific information to make an informed
consent, you won't even know whether there's a problem or
[whether] you should even ask for an expedited hearing."
Number 1490
ED MEYER testified via teleconference, thanking Representative
Coghill for the bill, which he characterized as "good as far as
it goes." He said he wants expedited hearings, and thinks
"shall" - not "may" - should precede "schedule" regarding those
hearings. He said if it is established that a hearing is
necessary, it is still optional for the board, giving the board
too much leeway. Mr. Meyer said he is pleased the physicians
will be licensed in Alaska or where the exam occurs. He urged
the committee to not take HB 274 "as a big step, in any sense,
toward helping injured workers." As Mr. Tschetter pointed out,
Mr. Meyer said it isn't necessarily [true] that a physician's
report or recommendations can be trusted; that needs to be
addressed. He added, "Maybe employees should have a say in what
physicians are going to determine their lives."
MR. MEYER offered a second point, that the board doesn't have a
physician or medical expert on it, and yet makes medical
decisions about expediting medical treatment. He asked that the
committee consider whether to add medical expertise to the
Alaska Workers' Compensation Board, which is doing the review.
Number 1603
BARBARA BECKMAN testified via teleconference on "this much-
needed piece of legislation." She said out-of-state physicians
are no more than "paid medical opinions, with really ... no
recourse on their ... opinions"; the same is true of the group
of physicians used in-state by the insurers. She added, "They
are led by the adjusters writing letters to them prior to the
exam, ... basically leading the exam, to render an opinion that
they want. And we all know the bottom line is the dollar."
With regard to the expedited hearing, Ms. Beckman suggested that
injured workers wouldn't request a hearing unless they needed
it. She added, "I wouldn't be here today, over five years
later, had I gotten the board or someone to step in and allow me
to get the medical care I needed." She agreed with Mr. Meyer
regarding the need to have medical expertise on the board.
MS. BECKMAN also said the insurers shouldn't be allowed to
controvert medical benefits until a board hearing has taken
place. She said she was denied much longer than she should have
been, which is why she suffers from the disease she has now.
She said no one reviews what goes to the board. Understaffing
of the division is a big problem, and the staff aren't qualified
to make the determinations. She concluded by saying the wording
in HB 274 needs to be "shall", not "may".
Number 1750
ERIC BECKMAN testified via teleconference. He agreed the
wording on HB 274 needs to be changed to "will" or "shall". He
told members he'd filed for an expedited hearing and waited for
over two years; there was no response from the state when he
filed. He said, "I don't believe that ... anybody should be
able to be cut off by the insurance company alone, or be
controverted by them, until they ... have an expedited hearing.
I believe that that practice should stop."
MR. BECKMAN said the medical examinations are being led
specifically by a questionnaire that basically leads the doctor
through the examination as to what he/she is going to do. He
asked: When did a medical doctor need an adjuster to lead an
examination with a questionnaire? He said the practice of
sending a letter to the doctor to guide them through an exam
should be stopped, and suggested that the stopping of that
practice should be included in HB 274.
Number 1911
CHAIR MURKOWSKI called an at-ease at 3:54 p.m. She called the
meeting back to order at 3:57 p.m.
MR. BECKMAN concluded by asking the committee to consider some
of the testimony given in 1998, which he believes will to
substantially reinforce this law so that it works.
Number 1967
CINDY MAEL testified via teleconference. She said she feels an
appropriate exam needs to be conducted in regard to the injury,
including the extent of the injury and the amount of time during
which it has been sustained. She suggested the examination
should be pertinent to [the person's place of residence]. She
agreed with the need for medical expertise on the board, and
that there should be no controversion of benefits until there
has been a fair hearing. She spoke in favor of having the
examinations be independent, rather than copying another
examiner's report.
Number 2035
GEORGE RODRIGUES testified via teleconference, suggesting
injured workers should have the right to be heard in a timely
manner. In his case, the insurance company spent more money on
travel, motels, and cars than on examinations. He added, "They
spent more time sitting there, trying to catch me saying
something wrong, than they did worrying about me getting well to
get back to work." Mr. Rodrigues reported that his evaluation
had stated that he had a pre-existing injury, with nothing to
back that claim; they never asked for his X-rays or MRIs
[magnetic resonance imaging], and then had told him he had to go
back to work. Ten days later, he'd received a cancellation
letter in the mail.
Number 2111
DAVID TWEDEN testified via teleconference. He informed members
that his first medical evaluation was performed by a doctor who
lives in Oregon and was flown to Alaska to administer it. The
doctor who performed the second evaluation rated his permanent,
partial impairment at 5 percent. Mr. Tweden said he then
visited a chiropractor, who reported an impairment rating of 17
percent - quite a difference. Mr. Tweden said he has had many
controversions in his case; it has been difficult "just trying
to survive." In September, he went to a prehearing conference
and was told he was no longer receiving compensation. He said
he has had no source of money since then, when his compensation
was controverted.
Number 2195
DIANE TWEDEN testified via teleconference, saying she thinks it
is a crime how injured workers are treated. She said there
needs to be a commission that helps them, rather than hurting
them further. She said her husband has been injured twice. He
was able to recover from the first injury through physical
therapy until he was healed. After the second injury, however,
the physical therapy was stopped, without notification, before
he was healed; now he suffers daily, ongoing pain, without
medical treatment. If he could have completed physical therapy,
she believes it is possible her husband could be back at work
today. She suggested there "needs to be a commission of people
that are for the injured workers, not for the money involved in
protecting the doctors and the rest of the bureaucracy."
Number 2240
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked testifiers to limit remarks to the
legislation, rather than addressing problems with workers'
compensation as a whole.
FLOYD L. OBERG testified via teleconference. He said there
needs to be more protection for injured workers. He said he has
been "in this system ... for about nine months, and I've about
had all of it I can handle." He added, "They put me on welfare,
they put me on social security, and all because of neglect of
some of these [higher-ups] up there, and I expect something to
be done. ... Get out and do your jobs, for Christ's sake.
Thank you. I've had enough."
Number 2290
BARBARA WILLIAMS, Alaska Injured Workers Alliance, testified via
teleconference. She said when someone has to see an independent
medical evaluator, there is no legal requirement for the
evaluator to even look at [the worker's] records. The only time
there is such a legal requirement is when the board appoints a
second independent medical evaluator. Most of the time, workers
don't have the proper information to make informed decisions.
The pertinent information from the independent medical evaluator
would allow the worker to ask the board for a chance for a
second independent medical evaluator - but most injured workers
aren't aware that this information is available to them. The
injured workers don't have anyplace to go to seek this
information because the board doesn't even sell the rulebook
that contains this vital information.
MS. WILLIAMS suggested HB 274 should be strengthened by
requiring independent medical evaluators to review "our"
records. She stated that after researching over 250 cases, "we"
find that insurance companies are summarizing injured workers'
records and sending those to the evaluators. Again, there is no
legal requirement for the evaluators to review the records to
make their decision. She said, "Workers are subject to this
every 60 days."
MS. WILLIAMS noted that when workers are unable to appear at the
hearing because of extenuating circumstances, it is
automatically considered a controversion of benefits; she cited
examples. Therefore, she said having a hearing before the
controversion is a great idea. "However, workers that need
immediate medical care never get it," she added, pointing out
that Ms. Beckman has a terminal illness that could have been
avoided, had the insurer used the proper information to
determine what was wrong with her. She emphasized that nothing
in the bill says anyone will read [an injured worker's] records.
Number 2366
MS. WILLIAMS said not one person on the Alaska Workers'
Compensation Board has any medical expertise to be rendering
decisions on medical emergencies on behalf of workers. She said
workers are denied care every day. This offers injured workers
little protection. When workers [are referred to doctors
outside of Alaska] there is no guarantee that the medical
evaluator has the proper credentials, has been sanctioned, or is
currently under sanction.
MS. WILLIAMS offered that the current licensing restrictions
don't adequately address the situation of medical evaluators
coming into Alaska. She suggested these medical evaluators
should be licensed with the Department of Occupational
Licensing. She added, "These people are also taking temporary
permits that are meant to be given to people in a one-time
fashion when there's emergencies for physicians, and they're
using these temporary permits to come and go and determine what
medical treatment we can get."
MS. WILLIAMS concluded by saying she appreciates the members of
the committee who are attentive, but that some members need to
be more attentive to workers' needs. She emphasized the
seriousness when people have to seek public assistance and
social security [benefits] just to survive. She asked that the
committee strengthen the legislation to protect the workers.
Number 2472
MARIA RAMIREZ testified via teleconference on behalf of [George
Ramirez], who'd had an accident.
TAPE 02-10, SIDE B
Number 2480
MS. RAMIREZ discussed the lack of information in the case. She
noted how difficult it had been for [Mr. Ramirez], and that
they'd been told to drop the case.
Number 2439
TINA EDMONDSON testified via teleconference, mentioning a couple
of different independent medical evaluations. In one case, the
insurance adjuster set up [an appointment] for her to travel to
Oregon for an independent medical evaluation; however, she was
unable to fly at the time. The insurance adjuster had informed
Ms. Edmondson that the [insurance company] had to pay the doctor
$1,500 regardless, and therefore the insurance company sent Ms.
Edmondson's records for review. Upon review of Ms. Edmondson's
records, the physician sent a letter [to the insurance company]
stating that Ms. Edmondson was able to work, was malingering,
and was in it for secondary gain. However, Ms. Edmondson said,
that wasn't true.
MS. EDMONDSON explained that her case has been going on since
1998. She expressed disbelief that a physician could write a
medical summary without ever actually physically examining her.
She informed the committee that she is on assistance now and
living in low-income housing, and therefore [how could one
construe that she is doing this for secondary gain]. Ms.
Edmondson said she doesn't believe in [using] out-of-state
physicians who are being paid by the insurance adjuster. She
charged that the physician will [write the reports to favor] the
insurance adjuster who pays the physician. Injured workers
don't stand a chance, she concluded.
Number 2308
DEBBIE PIEPLOW testified via teleconference, noting that she was
testifying because doctors aren't required to refer to the
medical [information] brought to them. She informed the
committee that her case was controverted in February 2001. In
November or December before that, her physician had wanted her
to go to the Environmental Health Center (ph) in Dallas, Texas,
in order to be tested and treated for exposure to chemicals.
After the treatment, she would have been back to work. However,
the insurance delayed until the first 60 days had passed. The
insurance company said it had physicians in Portland, Oregon,
[who were qualified the same as those in Dallas, Texas], and
therefore she went to Portland.
MS. PIEPLOW explained that during a pulmonary examination, she
was exposed to gases, and the physicians wouldn't explain what
they were doing to her. In the end, she had to fight to obtain
the name of the gas to which she was exposed. After that
exposure, Ms. Pieplow was very ill. She noted that before going
to Portland, she was on oxygen, which she continues today, and
was taking histamine shots up to eight times a day in order to
keep breathing. This is because the antigens, which would have
helped her to get over this, were mixed with preservatives. The
preservative glycerin sent her into shock, and thus she had no
alternative but to go out of state.
MS. PIEPLOW continued, saying she lost her home and became
homeless for five months. Just recently she got into [low-
income] housing and applied for social security. If it weren't
for food stamps, she would have no food. She characterized
reducing someone to this state of poverty as a crime. Ms.
Pieplow stressed that these independent medical evaluators
aren't independent whatsoever, but are paid by the insurance
companies. She noted that she'd brought her medical information
[to the meeting with the independent medical examiner], but [the
examiner] had said she hadn't, and the evaluation was based upon
the information available before the date of the exam.
Number 2134
AMANDA PIEPLOW testified via teleconference. She informed the
committee that she'd been examined by an independent medical
examiner who'd refused to review records sent to him by anyone
other than her employer's insurance company, which was trying to
controvert her case. This examiner wouldn't review her
physician's report that discussed how injured she was and that
she was unable to return to work at the moment. After doing a
cursory examination - and asking her to walk across the room,
which she did - the examiner then pronounced that she was cured
and could return to full-time work. This was not true, Ms.
Pieplow said, having been severely injured by a horse and unable
to stand or sit for long periods. Injured workers need to be
protected against these kinds of incidents, she concluded.
Number 2048
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that public testimony was concluded on
HB 274. She asked Representative Hayes whether Ms. Reardon had
answered his question regarding how a physician is licensed.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said yes, noting that he even had
documentation regarding that.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI recalled mention that the Alaska Workers'
Compensation Board doesn't have a member with medical expertise.
She asked whether that was the case.
MR. GROSSI explained that statute requires that the Alaska
Workers' Compensation Board consist of a labor member, an
industry member, a designee of the commissioner [of the DLWD] or
the commissioner. He pointed out, however, that there is a lot
of medical expertise involved, because of doctors' testimony,
reports, and depositions. A statutory change would be necessary
[to require a member of the board with medical expertise].
Furthermore, it may be problematic to attract physicians to the
board because it is basically a volunteer position, with a $50
stipend. In answer to a question by Chair Murkowski, Mr. Grossi
said there are currently 12 members on the board; however,
Representative Harris has sponsored legislation that requests
two more members.
Number 1957
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recalled that most of these panels are
three-member panels. He surmised that it would be expensive to
obtain medically trained individuals.
MR. GROSSI agreed. Even with the current composition of the
board, it has been difficult to obtain [volunteers] to serve,
because a hearing requires an entire day. Whether physicians
would have the time to serve on such a board would be
questionable. "But, again, we do have lots of expertise, as far
as specific cases," he concluded.
Number 1910
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that two years ago there was
a major rewriting of the workers' compensation law by the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, which he chaired at the
time. He recalled discussion regarding rules of procedures and
dissemination. He asked whether something [is given] to the
general public so that they understand their rights.
MR. GROSSI answered that [DLWD's] statutes are published and
available for purchase. Also, DLWD has a workers' compensation
booklet that is sent to all injured workers.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern with today's testimony
indicating that people hadn't understood their rights or the
procedures and deadlines. He surmised that the workers'
compensation booklet attempts to address such questions.
MR. GROSSI replied yes, noting that the division office can be
contacted as well. In further response, Mr. Grossi affirmed
that the booklet was updated after the recent rewrite. It is
updated whenever there is a change.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG emphasized that the recent rewriting of
the law was significant; the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee had spent countless hours working on it. Therefore,
he took personal exception to Ms. Williams' comment indicating
[some committee members] aren't paying [adequate] attention to
the issues of workers.
MR. GROSSI agreed there had been an increase in benefits and a
number of significant changes. He pointed out that with any
given legislation, it is impossible to make all the changes that
people desire. Furthermore, changes seldom affect the claims of
those who were injured prior to the changes.
Number 1755
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL wrapped up by pointing out that HB 274
will allow an expedited workers' compensation hearing. He
announced that he was open to discussing a change from "may" to
"shall" on page 2, line 24. "Once the board makes the
determination, then they can make a directive," he added. "And
that's really what the language would be saying." He said he
feels that might shore up some concerns expressed in today's
testimony.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether changing it to "shall" would
impact the ability to process the claims and result in a fiscal
note for the bill [because of lack of flexibility].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged that the change might
require a fiscal note. He noted that the language was made
permissive in order to avoid "wading out into that." "I don't
think we've studied the numbers, though, or the ramifications of
it," he added.
MR. GROSSI explained that the determination would still have to
be made that the individual may be adversely impacted by not
receiving the treatment. He said, "If these determinations were
made in a significant number, obviously, it would have some
impact. But I don't think that that's likely to be the case,
although I can't say with absolute with certainty." Mr. Grossi
surmised that if [Representative Harris's] legislation were to
pass, there would be more board members to hold more hearings,
and thus there wouldn't likely be a problem. One big problem
with hearings is obtaining the lay members to hear them, whereas
the department people are [working] every day [anyway].
Number 1633
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG returned to Mr. Grossi's point that
everyone feels his/her case is the most important one. However,
he said, the case could be made that any type of treatment is
necessary to avoid physical harm. He indicated the change to
"shall" would mandate the aforementioned, negating any
flexibility regarding an expedited hearing.
MR. GROSSI agreed it would be a possibility.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG added that if he were counseling
someone, he would suggest that the individual could demand a
hearing and that the [department] could hardly refuse.
MR. GROSSI offered his belief that there would have to be some
medical proof or evidence. It would be a "somewhat legal
determination."
Number 1564
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, "How do you sort that out?"
MR. GROSSI answered, "By that type of a process, ... whether ...
some operation is needed, and needed right away - those types of
considerations."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned sovereign immunity and getting
sued by everybody.
MR. GROSSI acknowledged that it could be a problem, but added,
"You'd still have to make that determination."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether [the language change]
elevates a person's right to appeal, and whether "may" helps.
MR. GROSSI replied in the affirmative. Currently, there is no
statutory expedited-hearing authority per se. Therefore, HB 274
does make a significant change.
Number 1481
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD remarked that HB 274 seems to go far in
addressing the complaints heard today. He remarked, "Once the
board or board's designee has determined that the claim involves
an issue of medical treatment and an expedited hearing is
necessary, I think it should be 'shall' instead of 'may'."
Furthermore, he said, it doesn't appear it would cause the
department undue harm to change the language.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD announced that he would offer the
foregoing as a conceptual amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that Representative Crawford
had referred to the board, rather than the individual.
Representative Rokeberg said he wouldn't disagree if it applied
to the board, rather than the individual, with "may" being
applied to the individual "in a proscriptive way." He surmised
that wouldn't seem objectionable to the [department].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded, "We're talking about a party,
the board, or the board's designee." He explained that [HB 274]
attempts to create a line so that those with an expedited need
[get an expedited hearing]. However, [with the "shall"
language] everyone would [have the ability to receive an
expedited hearing]. In that situation, Representative Coghill
said he didn't believe people would be served well. He
clarified that although he was cautious, he was open to
discussion.
Number 1366
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred to the possibility on page 2, line 23,
of deleting the language "upon request by a party". Therefore,
it would be just the action of the board or the board's designee
[in] recognizing that it is an issue of medical treatment and
that an expedited hearing is necessary. She asked whether that
would help. Chair Murkowski said she saw [Representative
Coghill's] point that [the language change] could open this up
to where it would no longer be workable.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG maintained that at the level of the
individual, [the expedited hearing] would be permissive by using
"may", while the action of the board or board's designee would
be mandatory. Therefore, the expedited hearing would be within
reach if the worker had convinced the board of the necessity.
MR. GROSSI mentioned his belief that it's almost necessary that
the party bring it to [the department's] attention, because
without that, it might or might not reach the point where a
determination is made.
Number 1252
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to Representative Rokeberg's
suggestion to use permissive language in reference to the
individual while using mandatory language for the board or
board's designee, referred to lines 25-26 [page 2, Section 2].
He said it isn't a mandate, but surmised that it could be
mandated somehow regarding the board or board's designee.
However, he inquired as to how much judgment [the legislature]
wants to mandate for the board or board's designee. He
questioned how far he wanted to delve in this arena.
Furthermore, "we" can never do enough in workers' compensation
issues. He reiterated the need to at least create an avenue for
an expedited hearing, when an individual brings it to the
board's attention. Frankly, he said, too many directives would
seem to tilt [the situation]. He then announced that he had
changed his mind on changing ["may"] to "shall".
CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that Representative Crawford had put forth
a conceptual amendment earlier.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he was ready to amend it according
to Representative Rokeberg's clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL turned to page 2, line 26, and noted that
it says "necessary to avoid physical harm". He related his
belief that there is a criterion before the board and that the
individual has access to the board. Therefore, he didn't know
whether [the language] needed to go further.
Number 1120
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that the language is confusing
because he reads it that the individual, board, or board's
designee may schedule [an expedited hearing]; however, he
believes the drafter really meant that the board or board's
designee would schedule [an expedited hearing]. Still, there
has to be a request. He concluded that the language is
defective. The individual's request alone shouldn't mandate
that [an expedited hearing] be scheduled, because the board or
board's designee should review it and determine whether to do
it. Representative Rokeberg suggested a conceptual amendment
could be put forth with the committee aide's assistance.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI suggested that Representative Rokeberg could
also chair a subcommittee.
Number 1036
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged that perhaps the language
isn't as artful as it could be. However, page 2, line 23,
specifies that the request is made, and the board is provided
the discretion to have [an expedited hearing], if the board or
board's designee so determines, in lines 24-25. Therefore, he
felt that the language was adequate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "Well, maybe you're right."
[The conceptual amendment wasn't pursued further.]
Number 0985
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES moved to report CSHB 274 [version 22-
LS0983\J, Ford, 2/4/02] out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHB 274(L&C) was moved out of the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 298-LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL OF RAILROAD LEASES
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 298, "An Act relating to legislative approval
of certain land leases by the Alaska Railroad Corporation."
[Before the committee was CSHB 298(TRA).]
Number 0298
CHAIR MURKOWSKI, sponsor, explained that she'd introduced HB 298
after working in conjunction with the Alaska Railroad
Corporation (ARRC), in order to simply allow for extension of
the railroad leases in certain terminal areas across the state.
Currently, statutes limit the leases to 35 years. Financing for
any project is usually for a longer term, however. Therefore,
HB 298 would expand the lease date from 35 years to 55 years, in
keeping with the current leasing policies of the University of
Alaska and the Department of Natural Resources. She informed
the committee that there has been concern that ARRC hasn't be
able to obtain adequate financing for projects in the Anchorage
area because of the current limitation in statute. Therefore,
ARRC has requested this legislation. She asked that Ms.
Lindskoog discuss the bill further.
Number 0789
WENDY LINDSKOOG, Alaska Railroad Corporation, explained that
this legislation would help make some of ARRC's land more viable
for commercial and residential development. She noted that a
couple of years ago [ARRC] came to the legislature with an
amendment to a bill that dealt with the problem of short leases
in relation to financing home mortgages in a subdivision in the
Healy area. Rather than address this problem in a piecemeal
fashion, [ARRC] had requested flexibility to offer a longer
lease term, 55 years, in the areas with the most demand for
such.
Number 0692
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that he and Ms. Lindskoog had had
a conversation regarding extending the lease to 55 years on all
lands, including the reserve lands. He asked if ARRC would be
amenable to that.
MS. LINDSKOOG answered that the foregoing would have been ARRC's
first choice. However, the request was [limited] to the reserve
lands, where there is the largest demand for this type of lease
length. Certainly, if ARRC could obtain the ability to lease
any of its land, [it would like to do so].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there may be some restrictions on
operating lands within the rights-of-way, but that could be
taken care of internally, he thought. He added, "And only those
lands that might come up that aren't within the so-called
terminal reserves, ... I think they may well. Why make it any
different?"
MS. LINDSKOOG remarked that it would be great if ARRC could have
the ability to have a 55-year lease on all lands. She clarified
that on right-of-way lands, ARRC typically doesn't issue leases;
rather, it issues permits. Those [permits] are often for
utilities that go through ARRC's right-of-way, and those can be
only for an 18-year period, per the Federal Transfer Act. In
further response to Representative Rokeberg, Ms. Lindskoog
confirmed that other lands could potentially qualify for a long-
term lease.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI pointed out that even if the lease terms were
extended to 55 years, it is still up to the board how long it
wants to make each lease. This [legislation] merely sets the
maximum term.
MS. LINDSKOOG concurred. She explained that ARRC's board of
directors has to approve all long-term leases, and there is a
public comment period, the time of which is dependent upon the
type of lease. Therefore, there is a lot of opportunity for the
public to comment on how the land should be used.
Number 0448
KAREN MORRISSEY, Alaska Railroad Corporation, Department of
Community & Economic Development, testified via teleconference.
She echoed earlier comments that the length of ARRC's lease term
is precluding a lot of developments, and that operators need the
longer term to obtain financing.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that in his 30 years as a real
estate broker in Anchorage, he thought it was extraordinarily
difficult to determine valuations on improvements when there was
a ground lease with a limited term. He said the valuations
would tend to be extraordinarily depreciated or that they
wouldn't get true value for the improvements to the land,
depending on the diversionary interest.
MS. MORRISSEY agreed, but pointed out that in recent times,
tenants are tending to sell their improvements. She explained
that often [tenants] request a longer term, which is taken to
the board. The board approves that longer term, subject to the
sale of the improvements. Therefore, the new tenant can invest
in that improvement and obtain financing to acquire that
improvement. Still, it is limited to 35 years.
Number 0317
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG related his understanding, then, that
this would have to be taken up as an issue 20 years before
[ARRC] would otherwise do so.
MS. MORRISSEY agreed, adding that typically the tenant needs 10
years beyond the term of the financing. Therefore, [HB 298]
will make it easier for tenants to either sell improvements or
invest in what they have [with a] longer term.
Number 0265
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered an amendment to CSHB 298(TRA),
as follows: Delete the text on page 1, lines 13-14, through the
word "paragraph" on page 2, lines 1-4. On page 2, line 4,
delete "35" and insert "55".
MS. LINDSKOOG indicated the only difference [between this and a
bill in Senate] is that the Senate bill deleted the language
"certain terminal reserves" in the title.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said the title of HB 298 would conform [to the
changes].
Number 0131
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG amended his conceptual amendment to
include a conforming title.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI informed the committee that as the sponsor, she
wouldn't object to Representative Rokeberg's amendment [as
amended]. She announced that there being no objection, the
amendment [as amended] was adopted.
Number 0108
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report CSHB 298(TRA), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
298(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.
HB 291-LICENSING OF RESIDENTIAL CONTRACTORS
TAPE 02-11, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced the final order of business, HOUSE
BILL NO. 291, "An Act relating to the requirements for obtaining
a residential contractor endorsement."
Number 0033
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), version 22-LS1158\C, Lauterbach, 2/1/02, as a
work draft. There being no objection, Version C was before the
committee.
NUMBER 0080
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER, sponsor of HB 291, explained that
currently a person must apply for the residential contractor
endorsement within six months after successfully completing the
exam. He said a constituent, Mr. Devore, had written a letter
noting that he'd been out of state for a family emergency and
had missed the six-month deadline; Mr. Devore's concern was that
the law didn't allow for extenuating circumstances. If a person
misses the six-month deadline, the only recourse is to take the
residential contractor exam again - which is four hours long and
is only offered four times a year, with a $75 fee each time the
test is taken.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he'd contacted Catherine Reardon,
Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, who'd agreed that
the law could allow some flexibility. He said a simple solution
was to extend the timeline to apply for a contractor
endorsement. He said Ms. Reardon had explained to him that a
common reason for missing the deadline was that a person might
be in the process of starting a new construction business.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER pointed out that originally HB 291 extended
the deadline from six months to two years, but Version C only
extends the deadline to twelve months. He said this was more
agreeable to all the parties involved.
Number 0283
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, informed the
committee that the Division of Occupational Licensing supports
HB 291.
Number 0302
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report CSHB 291 [version 22-
LS1158\C, Lauterbach, 2/1/02] from committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 291(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0341
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|