Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
02/16/2018 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| HB303 | |
| HB110 | |
| HB83 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 303 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 303-WORKERS' COMP; REHAB/REEMPLOYMENT
3:16:31 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 303, "An Act relating to workers' compensation
benefits for the rehabilitation and reemployment of injured
employees."
3:16:59 PM
GREG CASHEN, Acting Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development, stated that HB 303
would improve the process of determining eligibility in
developing reemployment plans for workers who cannot return to
their former jobs as the result of a work-related injury. The
bill proposes services to support injured workers, so these
injured workers can return to work quickly.
ACTING COMMISSIONER CASHEN stated the reemployment process is
meant to provide severely injured workers with new skills to
return to work. However, developing workable reemployment plans
within the statutory constraints has grown increasingly
difficult, he said, noting the reemployment process was last
reformed over ten years ago. This bill would update an outdated
process with new approaches to provide adequate benefits while
controlling costs, and to enhance the system's efficiency and
fairness.
3:18:29 PM
MARIE MARX, Director, Central Office, Division of Workers'
Compensation, Department of Labor & Workforce Development, began
her power point presentation titled, "Workers' Compensation
Reemployment Benefits: HB 303," and stated that workers'
compensation is a social contract [slide 1].
MS. MARX directed attention to slide 2, titled "What is Workers
Compensation, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
A system of insurance that protects workers and
employers from some of the losses from on-the-job
accidents and job-related illnesses.
MS. MARX directed attention to slide 3, titled "The Grand
Bargain," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
An employer provides prompt, necessary medical and
wage loss benefits to an injured worker for a work-
related injury.
In exchange, the injured worker receives limited
benefits and gives up the right to sue the employer
3:18:50 PM
MS. MARX elaborated that the employer provides limited benefits,
but not compensation for pain and suffering or punitive damages.
The benefits employers provide include medical and wage loss
benefits, retraining benefits, if eligible and death benefits,
in the case of a work-related death. Highlighting the injured
workers part of the compromise, she said that the injured worker
cannot sue the employer. She explained that workers'
compensation programs began during the industrial revolution
when large lawsuits would put employers out of business and
injured workers either were made whole or got nothing.
MS. MARX turned to slide 4, titled "MISSION," which read, in
part [original punctuation provided]:
To ensure the quick, efficient, fair and predictable
delivery of indemnity, medical, and vocational
rehabilitation benefits to injured workers at a
reasonable cost to employers
MS. MARX added that the balancing the five pillars: quick,
efficient, fair, predictable, and reasonable cost is what guides
the administration of the Workers' Compensation Act [slide 4].
3:19:54 PM
MS. MARX referred to slide 5, titled "Benefits Provided," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? Medical Care
? Indemnity (Wage Loss) Benefits
? Death Benefits
? Reemployment (Retraining) Benefits
MS. MARX, referred to slide 6, titled "Reemployment Benefits,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Intended to return an injured worker to work when the
worker cannot return to the job of injury or to jobs
for which the worker has relevant training or
experience.
MS. MARX turned to slide 7, titled "Current Challenges," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
?Mandatory reemployment benefits eligibility
evaluations
?Maximum plan cost of $13,300
?Retraining plans focus on quickest return to work
option, regardless of worker's interest in that
vocational goal
?Declining pool of rehabilitation specialists
?No rehabilitation specialist fee schedule
MS. MARX highlighted that there has long been a call for reform.
She explained that after being off work for 90 days, injured
workers are forced into the reemployment system, whether they
are interested in retraining, whether they are ready for
retraining, or whether they return to work on the 91st day. She
characterized these requirements as a waste of time and
resources. Further, forcing workers into reemployment training
when some do not want to be there often does not lead to good or
successful outcomes.
MS. MARX elaborating on another challenge, said that the the
maximum plan cost of $13,300 was established in 2000 and has not
been adjusted since then. This amount is often insufficient to
retrain someone. With respect to another challenge, she stated
that the retraining plans focus on the quickest return to work
option, which, if the employee is not interested, leads to
outcomes that are not successful. She pointed out the declining
pool of reemployment specialists results in some delays,
especially in areas such as Anchorage where demand is high. She
said the lack of a specialist fee schedule combined with the
declining pool of rehabilitation specialists really limits the
effectiveness of the system.
3:22:05 PM
MS. MARX directed attention to slide 8, titled "HB 303," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? Improves the delivery of reemployment benefits to
injured workers
? Provides eligible employees with more choices in
reemployment goals and plans
? Encourages injured employees' early return to work
? Helps employers control costs
MS. MARX offered her belief that proposed HB 303 would address
these challenges. Recently, the Workers' Compensation Board
issued a resolution, signed by members of both labor and
industry that supported reemployment system changes and
specified general areas needing to be addressed. The resolution
is listed as a supporting document in members' packets, she
stated. In developing the bill, the department met with many
stakeholders, including industry, labor, and workers'
compensation attorneys. In addition, the department met with
specialists and received significant input on crafting changes
to the reemployment benefit system. Early in the process, the
administration considered the policy of whether to cash out
injured workers or to retrain them. She emphasized that the
administration decided it wanted to retrain them.
3:23:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if they met with the injured
employees.
MS. MARX answered that the department met with labor
organization representatives, who often represent the interests
of injured workers.
3:23:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether anyone represented non-union
workers.
MS. MARX answered that the department met with the workers'
compensation claimants bar, and the claimants' attorneys raised
a lot of issues that were aligned with injured workers, as well.
MS. MARX, in response to a question for clarification, said she
was not aware of an organization of injured workers to meet
with, but the department met with the workers' compensation
claimants bar, who often represent injured workers and are
familiar with the challenges they face. This group brought many
concerns and the department incorporated many of the suggestions
offered.
MS. MARX emphasized that reemployment benefits are meant to
provide retraining skills and provide an opportunity for the
injured worker to become employable.
3:25:29 PM
MS. MARX continued with the section-by-section analysis of HB
303, stating that Sections 1 and 2 [included in members'
packets], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1 amends AS 23.30.005(h), by allowing
implementation of a fee schedule for rehabilitation
specialist services.
Section 2 amends AS 23.30.012(a), by no longer
permitting employees to settle reemployment benefits
with their employers.
MS. MARX clarified Section 1, noting that the currently fees are
unregulated. Under the change, fees would be adopted as per
regulation and this change would help control costs.
3:26:01 PM
MS. MARX reiterated the department's goal to retrain for
reemployment. She said that in instances when the injured
workers have opted for a lump sum, the injured worker will often
not use the funds for retraining. For example, injured workers
may use the settlement funds to pay their home mortgages and
deplete their funds. Once that happens the injured workers
often ask the division for retraining; however, the division
will advise them that they waived their right to reemployment
benefits and nothing further can be done. Currently, injured
workers also have an option for job dislocation benefits instead
of the reemployment benefit for retraining. She advised that
the department is retaining the dislocation benefit but is
raising the amount; however, the settlement offers will no
longer be an option since only eight percent of injured workers
are retrained.
3:28:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered his belief that most of the injured
workers take time to heal and return to their jobs. He asked
whether the department has statistics for those who return to
their jobs and for those who are retrained.
MS. MARX answered that to be eligible for the reemployment
retraining program, the injured workers must unable to return to
their jobs. If the injured workers can return to their jobs,
they are not eligible for retraining. She remarked that it is
great when injured workers can return to their jobs, but if they
cannot, reemployment retraining is available.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for clarification for workers who
voluntarily choose not to go back to their old jobs. He related
a scenario in which a worker fell off a ladder and was injured.
That worker might decide he/she wants a desk job instead.
MS. MARX answered that the injured worker would not be eligible
to learn a new skill set, but the determination is based on the
doctor's recommendation and is not a voluntary decision. She
emphasized that parties generally agree to an amount greater
than the minimum plan costs, which are $13,300. The proposed
bill raises that amount to $19,300 to adjust for inflation. She
emphasized that this bill did not limit the parties' flexibility
to pay more. They can agree to pay more than the minimum
amount; however, the maximum amount covers instances where the
parties are not in agreement.
3:30:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked for clarification that an
employer might pay more than the amount listed.
MS. MARX answered that the insurance companies are the ones who
pay the benefits and it is quite common for them to pay more
since insurance companies are invested in workers getting back
to work. She noted that the bill did not change this.
3:32:19 PM
MS. MARX then referred to Section 3, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 3 amends AS 23.30.041(b), by allowing the
reemployment benefit administrator (RBA) to offer
consultation services for employers on early return-
to-work policies and programs and providing the RBA
greater flexibility to assign and manage specialists
and their services.
MS. MARX said that Section 3 provides for the "early return-to-
work" program. The division would add a position to run a
program, based on a pilot program in New Mexico, to create
return-to-work materials for employers and offer consultation
services for injured workers to help them figure out how to get
back to work earlier. In fact, studies have shown the longer
injured workers are out of work, the less likely they will ever
return. In instances in which employers already have great
programs in place, such as the State of Alaska, the program
would not interfere with their programs. In fact, the division
might turn to some of these larger employers for assistance to
work with smaller employers who do not have the resources to
implement a solid return-to-work program.
3:33:31 PM
MS. MARX turned to Section 4, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 4 amends AS 23.30.041(c), by making
eligibility evaluations voluntary instead of mandatory
and establishing a deadline for an injured worker to
request reemployment benefits.
MS. MARX added that Section 4 would also establish a deadline
for injured workers to request reemployment benefits. The state
tried voluntary system years ago and it did not work, she said.
The difference in this voluntary system is that it would
establish a deadline by which injured workers must request
reemployment benefits. Injured workers must apply 90 days after
the temporary disability ends. The second piece, which is new,
is that this section establishes a mandatory meeting between the
reemployment benefits office and the injured workers to provide
them information about their rights and duties and options for
retraining.
3:34:32 PM
MS. MARX turned to Section 5, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 5 amends AS 23.30.041(d), by extending the
deadline for specialists to complete eligibility
evaluations to 60 days and allowing reconsideration or
modification of the RBA's decision.
3:34:42 PM
MS. MARX referred to Section 6, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 6 amends AS 23.30.041(e), by requiring an
injured worker's post injury job meet the worker's
remunerative wage to be considered in the evaluation
for eligibility.
MS. MARX explained that currently injured workers are not
eligible for reemployment benefits if the workers can return to
a job the workers have previously held in the past ten years or
any job the injured workers have held after the injury. If an
injured worker takes a new job after the injury, the division
adds language that requires the job must meet a minimum
threshold of 60 percent of their gross wages. She emphasized
that 60 percent represents the standard. She reiterated that
the division's goal is to incentivize injured workers to return
to work; however, not to use a low-paying job against them for
reemployment retraining. She related a scenario in which a
worker falls off a roof and suffers an injury, and when healed
enough to work, takes a desk job and answer phones as an interim
job. Since that job would not return the person to the same
skilled job level prior to the injury, the injured worker would
not be penalized. She reiterated the goal is to incentivize
injured workers to return to work.
3:36:08 PM
MS. MARX referred to Section 7, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 7 repeals and reenacts AS 23.30.041(f),
removing "previously rehabilitated" language and
replacing it with more specific language.
MS. MARX said this provides language to clarify what it means to
be "previously rehabilitated" such that the injured worker
accepted a job dislocation benefit, completed a relocation plan,
or completed a retraining plan.
MS. MARX referred to Section 8, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 8 repeals and reenacts AS 23.30.041(g),
allowing injured workers more time to choose the job
dislocation benefit over continuing to participate in
the reemployment process.
MS. MARX explained that right now, an injured worker has 30 days
to decide whether to accept a small lump sum or move forward
with retraining; however, the injured worker often does not know
what an eligibility plan would look like. Thus, this bill would
extend that to 150 days from eligibility to decide. That would
allow injured workers to take classes at a university and still
decide that the new field is not for them. Under the bill, the
injured workers would have an option. Under current law, after
30 days these injured workers would not have a choice, she said.
3:37:13 PM
MS. MARX referred to Section 9, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 9 amends AS 23.30.041(h), by requiring a
rehabilitation specialist progress report at 60 days
and allowing an employee in some circumstances to
select a desired occupational goal that might result
in wages lower than what the law usually allows.
MS. MARX explained that Section 9 would allow the division to
check in on the process. She stated that a specialist has 90
days to create a plan, but if the plan is not moving forward at
60 days, the reemployment benefit administrator can check in and
figure out how to proceed.
MS. MARX referred to Section 10, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 10 repeals and reenacts AS 23.30.041(j),
requiring the employee and employer within 30 days to
either approve and sign a reemployment plan, or deny
the plan by providing a specific reason for the
denial, and allowing reconsideration or modification
of the RBA's decision approving, denying, or changing
the plan.
MS. MARX explained that Section 10 would require the parties to
act on a plan. Currently, a specialist can come with a plan,
but the parties may not agree to it. If neither party asks for
the administrator to approve or deny it, it remains stagnant,
sometimes for years, while stipend benefits are being paid.
This proposed change would require some action to be taken
within 30 days, either agree or disagree. This provision would
also allow parties to ask for reconsideration or modification of
the reemployment benefit.
3:38:43 PM
MS. MARX referred to Section 11, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 11 amends AS 23.30.041(k), by limiting payment
of stipend benefits to not more than one year before a
plan is approved and not more than two years after a
plan is approved.
MS. MARX explained that the two-year limit already exists in
statute; however, before a plan is developed the stipend benefit
continues. There currently is not any incentive to move forward
with a plan. This proposed change would help employers know the
amount of the liability and help keep costs reasonable, she
said.
3:39:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON pointed out that he did not see the
cost savings for the "rebalancing" reflected in the fiscal note.
MS. MARX deferred to Division of Risk Management, Department of
Administration to respond. She agreed that the Division of Risk
Management's fiscal note was zero.
3:40:19 PM
MS. MARX referred to Section 12, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 12 amends AS 23.30.041(l), by increasing the
maximum cost for a reemployment plan to $19,300 and
providing an annual adjustment based on the consumer
price index.
MS. MARX reiterated that nothing would prevent parties from
paying more than the maximum amount. The amount was increased
to adjust for inflation.
MS. MARX referred to Section 13, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 13 amends AS 23.30.041(n), by allowing an
employer to controvert benefits if an injured worker
does not cooperate with the reemployment process.
MS. MARX referred to Section 14, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 14 amends AS 23.30.041(o), by allowing
reconsideration or modification of the RBA's decision
on noncooperation.
MS. MARX highlighted that currently, if the administrator missed
something or if new evidence or a new doctor's opinion arose,
the only option is to go before the board for a full hearing
instead of sending it back to the reemployment benefit
administrator for review.
3:41:35 PM
MS. MARX referred to Section 15, Section 16, and Section 17,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 15 repeals and reenacts AS 23.30.041(q), no
longer permitting employees to settle reemployment
benefits with their employers.
Section 16 amends AS 23.30.041(r)(6), by providing the
RBA greater flexibility to assign and manage
specialists and their services.
Section 17 adds new subsections to AS 23.30.041,
allowing an injured worker 150 days after eligibility
to choose the job dislocation benefit over continuing
to participate in the reemployment process, increasing
the job dislocation benefit amount, allowing the RBA
to suspend the reemployment process under certain
circumstances, allowing parties to request plan
modification based on a change in conditions or a
factual mistake, permitting an injured worker to
voluntarily exit the reemployment process at any time,
allowing parties to request reconsideration of certain
RBA decisions, and establishing a process for
reconsideration.
MS. MARX briefly read the sectional analysis and added, as she
previously mentioned, that Section 17 would extend the deadline
to accept the job relocation benefit amount. It would give the
injured worker 150 days after eligibility to choose whether to
accept the job dislocation benefit. As previously discussed,
the plan needs to be in place within the 90-day period, so this
language would provide injured workers additional time to
develop a plan or try one out for a few months.
3:42:28 PM
MS. MARX referred to Sections 18 and 19, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 18 adds a new subsection to AS 23.30.130,
allowing parties to request modification based on a
change in conditions or a factual mistake, and
establishing a process for modification.
Section 19 repeals AS 23.30.041(i), because the
language was moved to Section 9.
MS. MARX explained that the language in Section 19 was
reorganized and was moved to a new section. In addition, the
requirement that plans be the shortest amount of time was
removed and allows other factors to be considered.
3:43:01 PM
MS. MARX referred to Section 20, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 20 amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska, by adding applicability language.
3:43:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked whether the Division of
Workers' Compensation currently has reemployment administrator
positions on staff.
MS. MARX answered that the reemployment benefit administrator
position exists in statute. The division seeks to add a
position specifically to manage and create materials for the
early to work return program. The proposed bill would not add a
reemployment benefit administrator.
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD further asked whether there was
a fiscal note for the new position.
MS. MARX directed attention to the fiscal note from the Division
of Workers' Compensation, which is $57,852 for salary and with
benefits a total of $95,322. The position would coordinate the
early return-to-work program [added in Section 3]. In response
to Representative Sullivan-Leonard, she answered that the
position is in the attached fiscal note from the Division of
Risk Management. In further response, she offered to provide
the fiscal note.
MS. MARX restated the salary is $57,852 and the total cost with
benefits is $95,322. She indicated this person would be
responsible for running the early return-to-work program, which
is like New Mexico's pilot program. The Workers' Compensation
Board requested this position. In fact, many of the
stakeholders advised that states which have been successful have
had an early-to-work program, a program that is proactive in
getting injured workers back to work with their employer. She
remarked that it benefits everyone.
3:46:28 PM
CHAIR KITO opened public testimony on HB 303.
3:46:57 PM
BARBARA WILLIAMS, Certified ADA Advocate, Alaska Injured Workers
Alliance, Research and Development Corporation, stated that she
has been helping injured workers for the past years with
educational information. She offered her belief that none of
the injured workers have been contacted.
MS. WILLIAMS said that it has been 17 years since she has seen
an increase in the benefits for rehabilitation. She offered her
belief that the bill does not provide adequate funding for
injured workers to retrain. Further, vocational reemployment
and stipend benefits were eliminated. In addition, injured
workers would receive a voucher based on an impairment rating,
yet $19,000 was not enough compensation for workers to retrain;
instead, it should start it around $30,000. Under proposed HB
303, workers would be forced to cover costs while out of work,
she said.
MS. WILLIAMS stated that current reemployment retraining only
offers 60 percent of the remunerative wage, which does not
include overtime some workers regularly receive. She
characterized the bill as unfair to injured workers, who would
receive cuts to their benefits and not enough money to support
their families. She emphasized the reason for reemployment
training is to support injured workers while they are retraining
so they have a chance to successfully return to the workplace.
Many workers would not receive a voucher for retraining, unless
they have a permanent, partial impairment (PPI) rating of at
least five percent or more. Under the current guidelines for
permanent disability, there are many conditions rated less than
five percent. The reemployment process often commences the
impairment is even determined, she said. Some payments in the
proposed bill would not be allowed, but injured workers often
use these monies to retrain on their own, start businesses, and
complete their degree. Employers would not have incentives to
hire disabled workers, she said. Washington and Oregon offer
more options for workers who need to be rehabilitated or
retrained. Injured workers need support, rehabilitation, and
retraining when these workers cannot return to the jobs that
they held at the time of injuries.
MS. WILLIAMS said the proposed bill, HB 303, is not only an
oppressive plan, but it is unfair. She did not believe the
premise of cost savings at the expense of injured workers was
the legislature's intent. Other states that have made drastic
changes to programs like this have failed, and she reported that
these states have subsequently reversed their changes. Injured
workers need support and retraining to successfully make it back
to the workplace after being injured. Many injured workers do
not belong to labor organizations and it is difficult to obtain
and interpret the information, particularly for those who lack
education. In closing, she said the rehabilitation specialists
need to work more closely with the injured workers to obtain
input on the current reemployment rehabilitation process instead
of making it a more adversarial process.
3:50:35 PM
THERESA TOLBERT stated that she is an unemployed injured worker
on workers' compensation and her case has not been resolved in
four years. She has not been given the tools necessary to
return to work, she said. She reported that she has been to two
IME's [insurance medical exams]; yet, she is currently being
sent out of state for another one. She has animals she cannot
leave while she goes out of state, but she cannot obtain
reimbursement for pet housing. The board does not want to pay
for injured workers' education, but many injured workers who
want to work cannot obtain the tools to do so.
3:52:59 PM
KAREN DAVIS, Vocational Rehabilitation Specialist, Davis
Vocational Services, stated she is currently performing
eligibility evaluations to determine whether injured workers are
eligible for workers' compensation reemployment benefits. She
said she shares concerns raised by a previous testifier, Ms.
Williams, about injured workers with PPI [permanent partial
impairment] ratings of less than five percent. She remarked
that the proposed bill, HB 303, does not seem to provide much
protection for those injured workers. Numerous injured workers
have PPI ratings less than five percent. She liked some of the
changes, she said, but overall the bill has room for
improvement.
3:54:02 PM
SANDY TRAVIS stated that she is an injured worker who is
representing injured workers. In response to Chair Kito's
request that she not impugn any testifier, Ms. Travis agreed
that everyone including injured workers should be respected.
She voiced her opposition to HB 303 because she does not think
the voucher system or settlements would work. Further, she did
not believe that stripping stipend benefits would work. She
offered her belief what would work is to listen to someone who
would provide facts; however, she could not give the facts in
less than two minutes. She characterized HB 303 as a very bad
bill. She emphasized that taking away from injured workers
would not get them back to work or provide rehabilitation. She
said that when she first started the rehabilitation process,
injured workers had more than 90 days to determine whether the
injured worker could go back to work. She characterized the new
limits as ridiculous as they would not help the injured worker.
Instead, she suggested that if the division wants to get injured
workers back to work they need to provide them with benefits to
do so, not take away benefits or not listen to them. In closing
she characterized the bill as a "very bad bill" that should be
thrown in the trash and not be considered.
CHAIR KITO offered to accept additional written comments by
letter or email.
3:57:18 PM
MICHAEL J. JENSEN, Attorney, Law Offices of Michael J. Jensen,
said he has been representing workers since 1984. In 1995, he
opened the Law Offices of Michael J. Jensen. As a sole
proprietor, he has continued to predominantly handle claims for
benefits under the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act, he stated.
Although he has also worked on some longshore and social
security cases, his primary effort is on workers' compensation
cases. He commented that significant changes have been made to
the Workers' Compensation Act since 1984. His intent was not to
condemn this bill, HB 303, but he pointed out that it did not
give any incentives to hire disabled workers, unlike Oregon and
Washington. Instead this bill seeks to further restrict
benefits to injured workers, he said. He referred to Section
11, noting the stipend is limited to one year from the date the
temporary and permanent benefits end until the start of the
plan. Frequently, this is not enough since the plan development
may take much longer depending on the circumstances of the
injured worker, he explained. Temporary benefits are limited
until the injured worker reaches stability. It does not mean
the worker is cured, just that the doctor does not believe the
patient will get any better. Under the current system, the
permanent benefits are very limited with low ratings considering
the nature of the injury. Thus, he recommended two years
instead of the one year in this provision.
3:59:08 PM
MR. JENSEN referred to Section 12, offering that it was a good
start to increase the rehabilitation cost maximum from $13,300
to $19,300; however, even that number is insufficient. For
example, that does not include modifications for injured
workers, such as an ergonomic chair, desk, computer, or tools.
Further, $19,300 is insufficient to cover tuition, books, lab
fees or other equipment to allow injured workers to return to
work. He suggested the figure be increased to reflect realistic
costs for retraining and to include additional modifications
necessary for them to return to work. He turned to the
remunerative wage, stating his belief this is the main reason
the rehabilitation process does not work. The remunerative wage
goal was too low, he stated, since it represents 60 percent of
the gross hourly wage at the time of injury. He highlighted
that firemen, policemen, and oil field workers make the bulk of
their income in overtime wages, which is not reflected in the
remunerative wage goal. For example, he calculated 60 percent
of a $20 per hour job equals $12 per hour, which would be much
less than the injured workers earned at the time of their
injuries.
4:00:47 PM
MR. JENSEN directed attention to Section 15, which prevents
workers from receiving a lump sum settlement. Thus, if injured
workers discover their plans are not suitable, and will not
allow them to support their families, they are prohibited from
settling the value of their plans. They cannot use the funds to
pay off their debts for a fresh start, or for additional
education, or to add other funds to obtain additional training,
or start their own businesses. He emphasized he has mentioned
only a few motivations that exist for injured workers to settle
their stipends in a lump sum. He suggested one way to improve
the lump sum settlements of their stipends would be for the
board to predetermine whether injured workers have good cause to
settle and if it is in their best interest to do so.
4:01:59 PM
MR. JENSEN directed attention to Section 17, which would
increase the job dislocation benefits by $1,000 to $6,500, which
is not a significant change or much of an improvement over the
current system. Further, the dislocation benefits would only
apply to anyone rated at 15 percent or less PPI; however, he has
represented workers with 5 percent impairment who cannot go back
in construction, oil field work, or work as firemen and in law
enforcement. If those injured workers opt out of the vocational
rehabilitation system, they would be limited to $6,500 in total
settlements, he said. He suggested that provision could be
improved by increasing the amount.
4:02:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked for clarification of when the
proposed $6,500 figure for dislocation was last adjusted.
MR. JENSEN offered his belief that the current amount of $5,000
figure was last updated during the Murkowski administration.
4:03:52 PM
KAYA T. KADE, LPC, CDMS, TEP, Disability Management Specialist,
Kade and Associates, stated she is a vocational rehabilitation
specialist. She began her testimony by relating an anecdote
about an injured worker. She stated that during the IME process
the injured worker was withheld surgery for almost a year until
he finally obtained a secondary medical evaluation that allowed
him to have surgery. She advised members that because surgery
was delayed, the injured worker had suffered additional damage.
She said she wrote his reemployment benefits plan. She said he
was very upset at his treatment by the insurance company. He
finished his plan a year ago and worked for a year yet could not
continue to work with his insurance company, so he settled for a
lump sum. She considered this plan to be a failure, due to the
insurance company's negativity, noting the injured worker needed
to be out from under the insurance company.
MS. KADE offered her belief that many people settle because they
think they are strong enough to proceed on their own. Said has
had numerous clients finish their plans, and some who settle
because she cannot write a plan to meet the regulations. For
example, she currently has an injured worker who is considering
settling, that the person has been attending a university to
seek a double major; however, a double major fell outside the
regulations, she said.
MS. KADE said she did not understand why the department wanted
to adopt regulations to set fees and establish fines. She could
understand establishing qualifications; however, she said the
administration does not understand her business and expensive
costs, including insurance coverage, and medical coverage. She
recalled 20 years ago when the eligibility evaluation process
was voluntary, which did not work. She reminded members that
injured workers face surgeries, are on pain medications, and are
trying to get their lives back together. She did not believe
the deadline was appropriate, that 90 days was too soon. She
suggested that injured workers with injuries such as broken arms
or having surgeries also need physical therapy, that four to six
months would be better for reemployment eligibility evaluations.
At that point, most injured workers would be better able to
determine whether they would need more services. She applauded
the increase to $19,300, since the provision allows for annual
increases, which would be better.
MS. KADE pointed out that many of her clients lack formal
education. She emphasized that many peer review articles
indicate the importance of vocational rehabilitation, as key
aspects for returning workers to the workplace. She stated that
the division director met with vocational rehabilitation
specialists; however, it was after the Workers' Compensation
Board's (WCB) decisions were made. She lamented that the WCB
does not have any representation of either vocational
rehabilitation specialists or injured workers to provide input.
In closing, she reiterated that many injured workers have
obtained significant benefit from vocational rehabilitation, she
said. She offered her belief that those finishing their plans
without insurance company involvement exceeded 80 percent.
4:11:26 PM
GREG WEAVER stated that as a disabled worker he has been one of
many workers let down by the workers' compensation system in
Alaska. Further, he is a disabled U.S. Marine Corps veteran and
a second-generation Alaska construction worker. He remarked
that workers like him supply all Alaskans with the goods and
services they use, perform rig-ups on the North Slope, log,
fish, and extract Alaska's natural resources.
MR. WEAVER provided chronological details of his injury and
subsequent workers' compensation case number, 201320030. At the
time, he worked for the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC)
as a construction worker and had worked for them for five or six
years. In 2013, which was a particularly strenuous year for him
and his co-worker, he became injured. They had been flying
throughout the state, working at remote U.S. Air Force, FAA
radar sites, performing maintenance and upgrades to these sites.
While working in Kaktovik, he realized he could barely walk and
was flown to Anchorage for treatment and his doctor referred to
Algone Pain Management in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley (Mat-Su).
At that time, he opened a workers' compensation claim and his
case was initially handled by a senior workers' compensation
adjuster at ASRC, who subsequently assigned a nurse case manager
to guide him through the health care and workers' compensation
system. After an independent medical examination (IME) his case
was controverted, which means he was taken off his workers'
compensation claim, and the Division of Workers' Compensation
(DWC) did not object.
MR. WEAVER asked to "fast forward" a bit. He expressed his
gratitude for his Veterans' Administration benefits. After
having several other IMEs, he was referred to a leading
neurological surgeon, [Louis L.] Kralick, M.D. [Anchorage
Neurosurgical Association] at Providence Hospital, who
eventually performed surgery, fusing three of his vertebrae
together and completely replacing two discs in his lower back.
After three years of taking opioid pain medication, he has
recently been able to wean off opioids, he said. He could not
understand why the Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim,
he said. His attorney, Mr. Jensen, filed a claim for
reconsideration on appeal where he cited over 20 instances where
the board erred in its judgment; however, those errors were
completely ignored in his workers' compensation case. He said
that the workers' compensation system is broken and needs to be
completely rebuilt. Further, he would like Ms. Marx to review
his case. In addition, he has recently spoken to the
Ombudsman's office about his case who also agreed the workers'
compensation system is broken, he said. He remarked that he has
lost everything. He advised members that he has subsequently
been awarded disability by the Social Security Administration
(SSA), who recognized the 2013 date as the initial date of
injury. In closing, he reiterated that he would like Ms. Marx
to look at his claim. He thanked members for allowing him to
describe his workers' compensation case.
4:18:18 PM
[HB 303 was held over.]