Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/10/2017 01:30 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 | |
| HB69 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 69-REPEAL WORKERS' COMP APPEALS COMMISSION
1:37:34 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 69, "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), and 603(a), Alaska Rules
of Appellate Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR CLAMAN reopened the public testimony of HB 69.
1:38:15 PM
ERIC CROFT, Attorney, advised that he represents injured workers
and offered testimony as follows:
I want to make three points about the commission. I
do now practice law in -- representing injured workers
so I've appeared before the board, and the commission,
and the Alaska Supreme Court on those issues. And so
I speak from experience. I still occasionally dabble
in politics, as well.
The three points I'd like to make today. First, the
commission's decisions over the last 11 years show a
distinct and a clear bias against injured workers and
in favor of insurance companies. In my opinion, it is
not a fair tribunal if you don't get a fair shot.
Second, the commission does not do very much work
compared to other appeals courts, you get very little
bang for your half a million bucks.
And third, the commission has not brought the
uniformity and clarity to workers' compensation law
that was promised. In fact, often the commission's
decisions create more confusion than they resolve.
On the key point, the first point, that the
commission's decisions are overwhelmingly in favor of
insurance companies, I took the work that Mr. --
Commissioner Hemenway did, Andy Hemenway, where he
looked at all the opinions that had -- of the --
published opinions of the commission, there are 229 of
them. One hundred made it all the way to the Alaska
Supreme Court, and by his count, 39 reached a
substantive result as opposed to (indisc.) for want of
prosecution, those sorts of things. So, he had
counted 39 of those. I was able to find 36. I think
those other 3 are unpublished older cases, I'm
speculating there. But, it basically -- Commissioner
Hemenway and I agree on that there's a -- about that
number out there. Um, and I understand he testified
before you and presented some -- information that
there was a 50 percent affirmation of reversal rate.
... So, continuing ... um, I -- I have no reason to --
to doubt that, that appears to fit what I found. Um,
but I asked a slightly different question, that is how
often does the commission rule for or against injured
workers and how often do they get it right? Um, out
of those 36 decisions, I -- I took out some of the
decisions that weren't directly on workers' rights,
that is -- there was a sheriffs case that I was
actually involve with about whether there were gay --
whether a gay couple had rights under the Act. That's
something the commission has no jurisdiction over.
And, a Titan case where the employer was fined for
failing to get compensation insurance. So, ticking
off those that aren't on insurance company versus
employee benefits, there's ... um, 31 decisions in
this universe left. And, I've attached, as I said,
the attachment characterizes them by whether the
employee or the insurance company was suc -- ah, was
successful. In these cases the commission ruled in
favor of insurance companies over 85 percent of the
time. I think, more like 87 percent. But, the real
number is how often were they were right. That is,
were the insurance companies in -- in -- in the right
place 87 percent of the time? In the 13 cases where
the insurance company's position were confirmed later
by the Alaska Supreme Court, the commission got all
those right, that is, they are very good at spotting
when the insurance company should win.
1:42:38 PM
But, in the 18 cases where the employee's legal
position was correct, was later found by the Alaska
Supreme Court, the commission still ruled in favor of
the insurance company over 80 percent of the time.
That is, even when the Supreme Court later says that
the employee position was correct. It's still
overwhelming that the commission rules against them.
The board and the Supreme Court are much more balanced
in terms of their results, the commission is not. And
just to reconcile that with -- with Mr. Hemenway's
finding that there was about a 50 percent affirmation
of reversal rate, I just suggest that when you have a
commission that so consistently rules on one side,
they can be right at 50 percent of the time if they
always say -- or almost always say basically the same
position. It's like if somebody flipped a coin and I
just yelled "heads" every time, I would end up being
right -- being right about half the time. But, I
wouldn't be exercising much discretion.
MR. CROFT, in response to Chair Claman, advised he was
testifying on his own behalf.
1:44:23 PM
MR. CROFT continued his testimony as follows:
I'll just summarize the other two points then. I
listed that the commission doesn't do much work. That
is, in the last eight months, I counted up, they've
only done seven opinions, and over the last five years
their average is just over one a month. That's much
less than the criminal court of appeals, which does
have three attorneys as opposed to one attorney on the
commission. But, even there, they're turning out 14
to 15 opinions a month, or four to five for each
attorney who can write those opinions, as opposed to
less than one. So, you're getting five times the
production out of the attorneys who work for the
criminal court of appeals than you are from a
commissioner.
And, finally. I listed the fact that the commission
decisions often create more confusion than they
resolve. I listed the Hudak [v. Pirate Airworks,
Inc.] and Thurston v. Guys with Tools, a great case
name if nothing else. And, particularly emphasize
that the Adamson [v. MOA] case that I was involved
with where the commission, within a week, issued two
contradictory legal standards for stays on appeal.
And, the Alaska Supreme Court had to bring them both
together, consolidate them, and establish the law.
So with that I just say that the commission has a
decided bias against injured workers in favor of
insurance companies. There's not -- they don't do a
lot of work for the money you spend, and they have not
provided the clarity that we had hoped.
1:45:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that he appreciated Mr. Croft's
research and said that he suspected the research had probably
gone back prior to the start of the commission. He asked the
results, as far as a weight toward or against insurance
companies prior to these types of cases coming to the
commission.
MR. CROFT responded that his research did not extend to when the
superior court had jurisdiction because he ran out of time just
doing this. He related that he was a member of the legislature
when this commission was established and one of the main
arguments was that it would bring uniformity and clarity. That
argument had not been accomplished, although, he related that
there was a manner in which to craft a way to "get that out of
the current court," he said. To directly answer Representative
Eastman's question, he related that he was unsure of bias prior
to the creation of the commission.
1:47:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Mr. Croft's experience as an
attorney working in this area of law, and asked whether he had
any experience that would inform what he would expect that
number to be.
MR. CROFT answered that a mix would be anticipated, and in the
18 decisions where the Alaska Supreme Court eventually ruled for
the employee, it was roughly equal that the board decided one
way or the other. Therefore, he noted, the board was getting
some of those that should have gone the way of the employees
wrong, even at the board level. He referred to the category of
pro se individuals, unrepresented by counsel, who represent
themselves because they believe they have a case, but they just
don't and are just wrong about their case. On the pro se
employee side, they have to wait a long time to receive any
relief and if they take a case that is not meritorious to the
board, they often will not take it any further. Unless, he
commented, it is one of those difficult pro se individuals who
believe they have a case, but they don't.
1:49:52 PM
STEVE CONSTANTINO, Attorney, said he is an attorney in Anchorage
and was speaking on his own behalf. He advised that he has
practiced law in Alaska since 1981, and was later appointed as
the commissioner's designee and chaired workers' compensation
hearings. During the course of his practice, he said he saw
many meritorious cases where employees couldn't get an attorney
so he left the board and opened a private practice representing
injured workers. At the time the Workers' Compensation Appeals
Commission was created, he testified before committees at the
behest of Governor Walter Murkowski, and opposed the creation of
the commission and continues to oppose it for many of the
reasons Mr. Croft outlined within his extensive research. He
referred to his personal practice, and anecdotal experience, and
related that some of the problems with the creation of the
commission was that it was created to streamline the process and
the commission's decisions were binding legal precedent. In his
experience, he pointed out, when the defense receives a
favorable decision from the commission and changes the law in a
way that favors insurance companies, the insurer will approach
him with a settlement offer the injured worker, who has been
denied benefits for years, just can't refuse. As a consequence,
insurance companies are buying favorable binding precedent on
the Workers' Compensation Board. Subsequently, when those
decisions, in another case, finally get in front of the Alaska
Supreme Court they are often overruled and reversed, and the law
is then clear. He pointed out that this system was created
wherein insurers have an incentive to buy the precedent the
appeals commission creates. For the record, he stressed, these
are majority decisions between one attorney - a commissioner,
and two lay members; therefore, effectively, lay individuals are
creating legal precedent. He expressed that he was unaware of
another situation in Alaska's jurisprudence where that takes
place.
1:53:54 PM
MR. CONSTANTINO pointed out that no fiscal note was attached to
this bill, except to reduce the cost of the commission. He
further pointed out that at the time the commission was created,
the Alaska Supreme Court expected a flood of appeals and the
legislature funded a separate position for a clerk of the Alaska
Supreme Court to focus their attention on workers' compensation
appeals. He offered that that flood never appeared because
injured workers could not get through the system to get to the
Alaska Supreme Court. He then remarked that his preference is
for the superior court to hear these matters, and that he
understands the separation of powers issues.
1:55:18 PM
ANDREW HEMENWAY, Retired Chair, Workers Compensation Appeals
Commission, said he is the [most recent] retired chair of the
Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission and was chair for
approximately 18 months, and that he was testifying on his own
behalf. Prior to being chair, he explained that he was in
private practice, and was an administrative law judge (ALJ)
within the Office of Administrative Hearings. He stated that he
would not be speaking to the financial aspect of the appeals
commission, or to the pros and cons in terms of whether workers
or insurance companies are more or less likely to succeed.
Frankly, he said, in his view that was primarily a function of
who the chair was, and that anyone in that position would have a
mind set and that mind set would carry over into the kinds of
decisions issued. He agreed that many of the cases the
commissions hears are from injured pro se individuals who
believe they have a good case, but the reality is that they
don't, and they bring it up on appeal. Which, he pointed out,
does contribute to the high rate of reversal for the employee.
MR. HEMENWAY referred to precedent, and said that he appreciates
there is a downside to that, but there is also an upside of
predictability. Mr. Croft indicated that the commission was not
(indisc.) in that regard and, Mr. Hemenway pointed out that no
other court is either, as occasionally there will be
inconsistent decisions. The case Mr. Croft mentioned where
there were inconsistent decisions in a short time, he explained
that there were two different chairs of the commission, and one
ruling was issued by a pro tem chair and the other ruling was
issued by the chair, and they were somewhat different. He said
he agreed that is a problem because different commission
decisions shouldn't be issued and they are supposed to be
binding on the commission.
1:58:02 PM
MR. HEMENWAY noted two beneficial points to the current
structure, and referred to the longer amount of time it would
take to receive a final decision from the superior court as
opposed to the appeals commission. He explained that within the
rules set up in the superior court and the appeals commission,
it takes about the same amount of time in either body to get the
paperwork completed. He pointed out that the difference is that
the superior court calendaring depends on priority cases and the
workers' compensation cases will not be a priority. Also, the
superior court judge has six months to render a decision and the
appeals commission has thirty days.
1:58:58 PM
MR. HEMENWAY related that the second benefit would be how much
handholding pro se individuals would receive from the appeals
commission versus the superior court. He offered his opinion
that the appeals commission does a much better job of making
sure pro se individuals understand what they need to do in order
to complete their appeal, and that they have the ability to get
the necessary paperwork in.
MR. HEMENWAY remarked that there are two alternatives available
rather than simply sending it back to the superior court and
changing back to its previous structure. The first alternative
would be to use the Office of Administrative Hearings in some
capacity as the decision body as there are any number of
different structural ways the Office of Administrative Hearings
could take it up. He suggested possibly moving this position
into the Office of Administrative Hearings, changing the way the
chair was appointed, or something similar.
MR. HEMENWAY said the second alternative would be, in the event
the process went back to the superior court, the legislature
could have the superior court decisions have the same effect as
appeals commission decisions, and make them binding precedent.
He commented that the Alaska Court System did indicate it was
open to the idea of trying to develop some type of expertise
within the court system by working with the presiding judges.
He suggested that the legislature could have an impact on that
thought and direct that the cases be heard in the same venue,
which would limit the number of judges hearing them. He further
suggested a letter of intent indicating that the legislature
hopes for that type of approach or something that would lead to
expertise at the superior court level. Lastly, he related,
money was put into the court system's budget to provide that
expertise in this area, and he was unaware whether that funding
was still available.
2:01:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked the advantages and disadvantages of
utilizing the Office of Administrative Hearings.
MR. HEMENWAY advised that the Office of Administrative Hearings
currently has approximately 10 administrative law judges, and
the judges are similar to the court system's trial judges.
Administrative law judges provide due process hearings for a
wide variety of agencies, "they don't right now have any -- any
role as an appellate body," where the fact finding had been
accomplished and all it would do was appellate work. The
advantage, from his perspective having worked in both areas, was
that the Office of Administrative Hearings has a good reputation
across the board as being impartial. He explained that it has
many different types of hearings, and that office was not
perceived as being particularly favorable to one side or the
other. He suggested the possibility of the appeals commission's
chair being appointed by the chief administrative law judge, of
which might take the potential for political influence out of
it, if that was a concern. The advantage would be the
impartiality, and also there would be a fiscal savings because
there would be economies of scale. He explained that the
appeals commission was not always a fulltime position because
the cases ebbed and flowed. In the event it was in the Office
of Administrative Hearings and there was a period of time with
less than fulltime work, the chair of the appeals commission
could work on other matters, as well. Lastly, if it was in the
Office of Administrative Hearings, it could roll in the appeals
commission's fulltime staff person because it probably doesn't
really require more than a halftime person if a structure was
set up with other staff available to work on it. The advantage
would be money and impartiality. The downside was that the
Office of Administrative Hearings does not currently have anyone
with workers' compensation appeals [expertise] but it could
develop expertise over time. Although, he pointed out, the
superior court doesn't have that expertise either.
2:04:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, based upon his experience as an
administrative law judge, whether the Office of Administrative
Hearings would be able to do this job without hiring additional
administrative law judges, and staff.
MR. HEMENWAY responded that Representative LeDoux would have to
speak with the chief administrative law judge because it depends
upon their case load. He said he would guess that they would
need a position to do this work, and it may not necessarily be a
fulltime staff position.
2:06:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired as to the number of years Mr.
Hemenway looked at workers' compensation issues.
MR. HEMENWAY answered that he does not have a great deal of
workers' compensation experience, and related that he worked in
the Alaska Supreme Court for five years at the beginning of his
career. One of his responsibilities was administrative appeals
and working on all of the workers' compensation appeals that
came through the Alaska Supreme Court. He related that in
private practice he worked with several attorneys who worked
primarily in workers' compensation law and he was exposed
through that. He specified that he does not have a real depth
of experience in that area and that his primary experience was
administrative law in general, and working as an administrative
law judge.
2:07:29 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN presented a situation wherein someone was before
the Office of Administrative Hearings and they didn't like the
result, he asked whether they would then directly appeal to the
Alaska Supreme Court, or stop at the superior court and then
appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court.
MR. HEMENWAY explained that the appeals go to the superior court
from the Office of Administrative Hearings. In the event the
decision was to send these cases to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, he said he assumed the committee would want to
eliminate the superior court and go straight to the Alaska
Supreme Court as they do now. In the event cases were sent
straight to the Office of Administrative Hearings without some
sort of special provision to bypass the superior court, then the
committee would be adding another layer of process, which was
probably not in anyone's best interest.
2:08:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked how long he worked in the Office of
Administrative Hearings.
MR. HEMENWAY responded that he started when the office was
established in 2005, so ten years.
CHAIR CLAMAN then asked how long he [chaired] the workers'
compensation appeals commission.
MR. HEMENWAY answered, 18 months.
2:09:39 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, said she was
available for questions.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN quiered as to whether the court system
could handle these types of cases in the Office of
Administrative Hearings (OAH) without or with minimal increases
to staffing and resources.
MS. MEADE answered that the court system would not require
additional staff to handle these cases and, accordingly, it
submitted a zero fiscal note. She said she could not speak for
the Office of Administrative Hearings about the fiscal impact of
handling these cases. Although, the previous testifier
testified that the Office of Administrative Hearings would be
able to handle appeals, and that his supposition was with
additional staff. Her understanding, she offered, was if these
cases went to the Office of Administrative Hearings they would
not go to the superior court and would go to the Alaska Supreme
Court; therefore, the court system would not have a fiscal
impact from that decision either.
2:11:23 PM
MARIE MARX, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), said she was
available for questions.
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Eastman's question
whether the current chair of the Workers' Compensation Appeals
Board would be testifying, pointed out that it would be better
to ask the prior chair to testify because with the discussion
being about taking the current chair's job away it was probably
not the best idea, and that he only recently became chair.
2:12:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that the discussion was around
whether it would be beneficial to move some of these cases to
the Office of Administrative Hearings, and asked her thoughts.
MS. MARX opined that the administration's position is that this
was a policy call. She opined that sending only workers'
compensation cases with a full due process evidentiary hearing
at the administrative level, appeal to another administrative
function, didn't make sense, and no other administrative type of
proceedings do that. She explained that, except for workers'
compensation cases, administrative appeals move from a full
evidentiary due process hearing to the superior court to the
Alaska Supreme Court.
2:14:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked her thoughts about having an
administrative law judge look at the case, and from there bypass
the superior court.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that the committee had not suggested
that as the alternative, and rather that it was an idea being
discussed.
MS. MARX explained the system set up for administrative appeals
as follows: a due process hearing at the administrative level,
appeal to [the superior] court, appeal to the Alaska Supreme
Court. She opined that that is how things flow for
administrative appeals and she did not understand why workers'
compensation would be treated differently.
MS. MARX agreed that workers' compensation was complicated, but
so are family legal issues, mental health courts, and many other
complicated areas of law, and that she could not understand why
workers' compensation would have a special rule. She further
reiterated her understanding that workers' compensation cases
would move from the Workers' Compensation Board, appeal to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, skip the superior court, and
appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court, of which would be the only
type of administrative appeal that would do that.
2:16:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that, theoretically, if it was to be
treated like everything else, wouldn't it start out in the
superior court and then to the Alaska Supreme Court.
MS. MARX responded that that was a policy call, and she unsure
whether it was her place to make comments on behalf of the
administration since it hadn't been raised as an issue and
hadn't been discussed. She related that having the workers'
compensation board perform full due process evidentiary hearings
had been in place probably since statehood and changing that
process would probably need a lot of input from all of the
stakeholder groups. She continued that it was established that
there would be one member of labor, one member of industry, and
a fulltime hearing staff member that chairs, and it works on the
board level.
2:17:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that she wasn't suggesting
actually starting at the superior court level, in that Ms. Marx
had explained why the legislature might now want to use the
Office of Administrative Hearings. She related that she thought
Ms. Marx commented that workers' compensation should not be
treated differently from anything else. She clarified that she
was just commenting that if it wasn't treated differently than
anything else, why not just start at the superior court level.
MS. MARX clarified that she meant, once there had been a full
due process evidentiary hearing at the administrative level,
possibly the Office of Administrative Hearings, is where she
said the administrative process should be the same for those
agencies. Although, she explained the Office of Administrative
Hearings is not the only panel that takes fact finding full due
process hearings, and that the board does also.
2:19:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 69.
2:19:44 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN agreed with Representative LeDoux's suggestion of
hearing from someone from the Office of Administrative Hearings.
2:20:31 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:20 p.m. to 2:50 p.m.
2:50:10 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that the committee had been joined by Chief
Administrative Law Judge, Kathleen Frederick.
2:50:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Ms. Frederick, in the event the
workers' compensation appeals commission was transferred to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, whether this would be
something it would have the ability and expertise to do, whether
that would be within the purview of its jurisdiction, and
whether she would require additional staff and additional judges
to do this sort of thing.
2:51:23 PM
KATHLEEN FREDERICK, Chief Administrative Law Judge, Office of
Administrative Hearings, explained that the Office of
Administrative Hearings (OAH) is an independent (indisc.) to
agency called the central panel, with approximately 26 in the
country. She said she was aware of approximately seven who work
on workers' compensation appeals. While OAH primarily does
hearings de novo, it also occasionally does appeals, and in
fact, last night it sent out a decision in an appeal from an
entity that was a board. Therefore, she related that it is
something OAH could do, and in fact it is done in other states
as well. Historically, in 2014 under the part of the
administration, there was a move to handle the workers'
compensation appeals in that manner, she offered.
2:52:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what happened with that move.
MS. FREDERICK advised that the administration changed, and at
the time a white paper was procured in conjunction with a
retiring chair, pre-dating Mr. Hemenway. The retiring chair
thought there would be a cost savings to roll this into OAH when
"he was out of there." The administration then changed and the
Department of Labor & Workforce Development preferred to go in a
different direction.
2:53:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that presumably either the Office of
Administrative Hearings or the Department of Labor & Workforce
Development has that white paper.
MS. FREDERICK advised that Ms. Marx and she have that white
paper. At the time there was an enormous amount of money going
to the facility of the workers' compensation appeals commission.
At that time, a view of the chair was that there would be a
substantial space savings because it was occupying over 1800
feet in the building at 6th and K, and their lease costs were
approximately $50,000 a year. Also, it wouldn't need the same
number of staff because a judge could pick up the workers'
compensation appeals work in addition to working on other cases
if it was less than fulltime.
2:54:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that if the Office of
Administrative Hearings was to take over and do this type of
work, whether additional judges and/or additional staffing would
be necessary.
MS. FREDERICK opined that there would not be a need for
additional staffing because OAH would have ample staff to handle
it. She said she needs to look further because her information
was about three years old, and look at the commission's current
caseload, the hours involved, things of that nature, and then
look at the statistics here to see whether it could be done in-
house. Sometimes OAH has had judges with some workers'
compensation experience such as administrative law judges Andrew
Hemenway and Rebecca Pauli. Currently, she said she did not
believe there was anyone with that kind of background.
Although, she pointed out that the office handles 66 different
types of case areas and they all have had to come to speed in
various areas, and it is something they do pretty well.
2:55:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that her office wouldn't
necessarily have to hire someone for their workers' compensation
expertise. When comparing the two entities, she remarked that
it wasn't thought there was a judge with workers' compensation
background at the superior court, and that Ms. Frederick
wouldn't necessarily have to hire someone just because no one
currently had background in workers' compensation.
MS. FREDERICK explained that in the event an agency asked
whether they could handle a certain type of case, they sent a
person to a training program to come up to speed in that
particular area of law. She noted that, currently, the statute
requires someone to be employed by the commission and have a
fulltime job. In the event a person was brought in, trained,
and skilled in workers' compensation, that part of the statute
would require revising. Her understanding was that the case
load of workers' compensation ebbs and flows and it, currently,
is not a fulltime position. There are savings for positions
worked under 29 hours per week, such as not paying benefits, she
said.
2:57:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested a copy of the white paper.
MS. FREDERICK said she would have to check with (indisc.) to see
whether it was for public dissemination because it was under a
prior administration and she was unsure of the rules. Assuming
she can turn it over, she said she would be happy to do so.
MS. MARX opined that it was an administrative policy type paper,
Ms. Frederick forwarded it to her, and she forwarded it to the
commissioner. She said barring any unforeseen circumstances
about not being able to distribute the white paper to the
public, she would be happy to provide it to the committee.
MS. FREDERICK noted that she was unsure whether it could be
distributed because it was a thinking paper in a prior
administration, and she wanted the committee to be aware that
the facts at that time may have changed.
2:59:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for clarification that in the event this
function for appeals from the workers' compensation board were
to be assigned to the Office of Administrative Hearings, Ms.
Frederick wouldn't need to hire any additional judges, but
whether she thought she may need to hire support staff that
would develop expertise.
MS. FREDERICK articulated that she would not need more staff,
but she wanted to take a closer look at the amount of the
workload the commission currently has to make sure it could be
absorbed without any additional staff. The other function that
came up back then, was that originally the chair was a range 27,
and they have a specialty judge category that is a range 25. At
the time the talk was to revise the range 27 position because
that is a director's position down to a range 25. She related
that numerous issues would go into this pot and on such short
notice she had to think through all of them and be prepared to
answer a bit better.
3:01:29 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said the committee would hold the bill, get the
white paper from the administration, and Ms. Frederick could get
the information she needs to provide answers to the questions
the committee posed.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Frederick whether she could provide
written answers to the questions posed to her today, rather than
at a hearing.
3:02:26 PM
MS. FREDERICK asked for clarification that the question would be
whether they would need additional staff, and whether they would
need an additional ALJ.
CHAIR CLAMAN agreed, and he noted that Ms. Marx would provide
access to the caseload of the workers' compensation appeals
commission over the last few years.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that the committee would wait on the
written answer from Ms. Frederick and then schedule the bill in
due course. He noted that if, as a result of that, there is a
kind of interest in exploring more of this alternative to try to
figure that out before the hearing and have an amendment offered
if that is the direction the committee wants to go.
3:03:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that he was interested in
reading the white paper, and hoped that if it was prepared at
the taxpayer's expense, that the committee could get a copy of
it.
[HB 69 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB069 ver O 2.18.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/22/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| HB069 Sponsor Statement 2.16.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/22/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| HB069 Summary of Changes ver O 2.24.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/22/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| HB069 ver A 2.16.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| HB069 Sectional Analysis ver A 1.30.2017.pdf |
HJUD 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM HL&C 2/6/2017 3:15:00 PM HL&C 2/10/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| HB069 Supporting Document-WCAC cases 1.30.2017.pdf |
HJUD 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM HL&C 2/6/2017 3:15:00 PM HL&C 2/10/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| HB069 Supporting Document-Croft Attachment 3.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| HB069 Supporting Document-Letter Eric Croft 3.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| HB069 Opposing Document-Letter David D. Floerchinger 2.28.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| HB069 Opposing Document-Letter Workers' Compensation Committee of Alaska 3.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| HB069 Fiscal Note DOLWD-WCAC 2.16.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/22/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| HB069 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 2.16.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |