Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
01/31/2024 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB88 | |
| HB63 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 63 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 63-REPEAL WORKERS' COMP APPEALS COMMISSION
1:16:03 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 63, "An Act repealing the Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission; relating to decisions and orders of the
Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission; relating to superior
court jurisdiction over appeals from Alaska Workers'
Compensation Board decisions; repealing Rules 201.1, 401.1, and
501.1, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure, and amending Rules
202(a), 204(a) - (c), 210(e), 601(b), 602(c) and (h), and
603(a), Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and providing for
an effective date."
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony to HB 63.
1:16:42 PM
ANDY HEMENWAY, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
63. He informed the committee that he had retired as chair of
the Alaska Worker's Compensation Appeals Commission. He cited
three main points: the Commission's caseload, the Commission's
force of legal precedent, and the commission's productivity. In
respect to caseload, he acknowledged that the number of cases
had drastically decreased, due in part to covid. He said it was
reasonable to expect a return to normal levels as the economy
rebounds and would therefore be a mistake to make a policy
decision based on low numbers. On the second point, he
addressed how cases were handled before the commission was
created, emphasizing that the commission's decisions have the
force of legal precedent. He cited state statute that gives the
board legal precedent and conveyed the clarity that it provides
for the board, insurance companies, and lawyers. In regard to
productivity, he explained that the commission's rules provide
for a certain amount of time for preparing the record, briefing,
etcetera. It would take a year to decide a case regardless of
the number of cases in front of the commission, he said.
1:21:26 PM
LYN ELLIOT, VP of State and Government Relations, American
Property Casualty Insurance Association, testified in opposition
to HB 63. She made three points: Firstly, she emphasized the
complexity of workers' compensation law and the commission
members' knowledge, which reduces the likelihood of a supreme
court appeal. She added that she would expect a decrease in
cases if the commission was doing its job properly. Secondly,
the judicial system has a lack of resources that would likely
delay resolution appeals, she posited. Thirdly, the repeal of
the commission would not support the intent of the Workers'
Compensation Act.
CHAIR VANCE closed public testimony on HB 63.
1:24:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
HB 63, such that all references to 2023 would be changed to
2024. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was
adopted.
1:25:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked what would happen if the case count
rose above 30.
MR. MCKEE deferred to Ms. Meade
1:26:21 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, acknowledged
that the fiscal note implied a zero fiscal impact for up to 30
cases; however, she did not intend to imply that 31 cases would
create a fiscal impact. She reiterated that the bill would not
require fiscal resources at this time. In response to a follow
up question, she explained that superior court decisions bind
the parties in a particular case to the judge's determination.
Superior court judges don't make law, she said, adding that new
common law is decided by the Alaska Supreme Court whose job it
is to resolve disagreements on the application of the law and to
make law for the state of Alaska.
1:28:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked who enforced the precedent created by
the commission.
MS. MEADE said similar to statute, there is no outside
enforcement entity. She indicated that any infringement could
be handled in court.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether the commission always met its
30-day time constraint when issuing a decision.
MS. MEADE answered no; however, both parties always agreed to
pushing the 30-day time limit for various reasons.
1:30:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked how the members of the hearing
panel - composed of a labor member, management member, and a
full-time attorney - were appointed.
MR. MCKEE shared his belief that the governor appointed the
commissioners.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER sought to confirm that should the bill
pass, the [Alaska] Supreme Court would establish precedent for
the industry.
MR. MCKEE answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether there was value in
resolving cases establishing precedent by the Alaska Supreme
Court, as opposed to establishing a commission prior to reaching
the Alaska Supreme Court.
MS. MEADE said that would be a judgement call for the
legislature to make.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the subject matter
expertise at the commission positively or negatively impacted
the length of time it take to resolve a case when compared to
the same case going to the Supreme Court.
MS. MEADE indicated that in general, the court takes longer to
resolve cases compared to the appeals commission. In response
to a follow up question, she confirmed that to set binding
precedent for the industry, the Alaska Supreme Court would need
to be involved. She declined to opine on the value to industry
or laborers.
1:35:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD inquired about the expertise of the
commissioners and the necessary qualifications to sit on the
commission.
MR. MCKEE said no particular expertise was required.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether there had been complaints
about commissioners lacking legal expertise.
MR. MCKEE answered no, adding that cases were supposed to take
less time to go through the commission; however, the commission
was taking as long as the superior court, even with the drop in
cases. He countered the idea that the low case count was a
result of the pandemic, indicating that fewer cases had become a
pattern.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether Ms. Meade was saying that
sitting judges and attorneys don't have the knowledge or whether
they don't have the time. She asked Ms. Meade to clarify her
prior indication "that sometimes judges don't know ... because
they're not an expert in it."
MS. MEADE acknowledged that most judges do not have a background
in workers' compensation law; however, when presented with a
case, a judge's duty is to learn that area of law to make the
best decision necessary. She added that these cases are often
more time consuming than other matters due to complex medical
records in many instances.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether cases would take longer to
process if responsibility was transferred from the commission to
the Supreme Court.
MS. MEADE shared her understanding that it would take longer;
however, some cases have strict deadlines with severe
consequences, such as criminal cases, expedited cases, and Child
in Need of Aid (CINA) cases.
1:42:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether within the commission, there
was a timeframe for the appeals process.
MR. MCKEE offered to follow up with the requested information.
1:42:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER shared his understanding that the bill
would save the state roughly $480,000 per year. He asked which
fund the money would go back to or whether it would be consumed
by other things.
MR. MCKEE stated his belief that it would go back into the
commission's fund, which was currently being filled with general
fund (GF) dollars to cover any remaining deficit from the tax on
insurance claims.
1:43:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked how the court would respond to
the increased caseload.
MS. MEADE stated that the court system would watch the caseload
and if justified, come to the legislature to ask for a new judge
to take on the increased work.
1:46:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to report HB 63, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 63(JUD) was
reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 63 - APCIA Letter of Opposition.pdf |
HJUD 1/31/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 63 |
| HB 63 - Andy Hemenway Letter of Opposition.pdf |
HJUD 1/31/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 63 |