Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
03/20/2024 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB60 | |
| HJR3 | |
| SB134 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 60 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 60-REPEAL WORKERS' COMP APPEALS COMMISSION
1:31:57 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 60
"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."
1:32:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on SB 60.
1:33:09 PM
ANDY HEMENWAY, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 60. He stated that he retired as chair of the
Alaska Workers Compensation Appeals Commission in 2016 and
testifies today in a personal capacity. He addressed two points:
Commission Rulings Have the Force of Legal Precedent
MR. HEMENWAY explained that prior to the creation of the
Commission, appeals from the Workers' Compensation Board were
heard by the Superior Court. Superior Court rulings did not have
the force of legal precedent, meaning the Board, insurance
companies, or an attorney representing injured workers could
disregard a legal ruling with which they disagreed in future
cases. Moreover, other Superior Court judges could rule
differently in future cases, leading to uncertainty in the
application of rules. He stated that the legislature addressed
this uncertainty by creating the Commission and directing by
statute that Commission decisions have the force of legal
precedent. This meant the Board, insurance companies, workers
and their attorneys could rely on clear rules and plan and act
accordingly. He stated that if the parties to a case do not like
the Commission ruling, they may appeal to the Alaska Supreme
Court.
MR. HEMENWAY underscored that because the Commission's decisions
create binding precedent, it is especially important that these
decisions are the product of a body with experience and
expertise in workers compensation law. Legal expertise on the
part of the chair and practical experience on the part of the
lay members of the Commission, by statute, must have served on
the Workers Compensation Board.
Commission Caseload Numbers
MR. HEMENWAY acknowledged a decline in cases before the
Commission in the last three years. He attributed this to a
corresponding drop in the number of claims filed, which
inevitably led to fewer cases before the Board and, eventually,
fewer appeals to the Commission. He surmised that the drop is
related to the COVID-19 pandemic. He expects that the number of
appeals will rise. He stated that six appeals have already been
filed this year, which is equivalent to past normal caseload
numbers.
1:36:05 PM
MICHAEL BUDZINSKI, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in opposition to SB 60. He stated that he is an
attorney who has practiced in the area of workers' compensation
for over 40 years. He practiced when appeals went to the
Superior Court and, afterward, in 2005, when appeals
transitioned to the Commission.
MR. BUDZINSKI expressed his view that the current structure,
which involves the Commission, is far better than the prior
structure when appeals went to the Superior Court. He said this
is due, in large part, to the requirement that Commission
members have experience in workers' compensation; they are very
knowledgeable. When appearing before the Commission, attorneys
can use technical shorthand and legal acronyms, knowing that
Commission members are familiar with the terminology and subject
matter. This is a huge advantage. He emphasized the importance
of Commission decisions, which have precedential value, and
noted a recent experience in which the Commission pushed back on
legal issues raised by the Alaska Supreme Court. He believes
this type of exchange strengthens the process and yields a
better legal result because there is give and take between the
different bodies.
MR. BUDZINSKI expressed his belief that maintaining the
Commission is the wisest choice. He concluded by stating that
the creation of the Commission in 2005 was necessary, and the
reasons for its existence remain valid to this today.
1:37:43 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if he worked primarily on the employer or
employee side of workers' compensation proceedings.
MR. BUDZINSKI replied, the employer side.
1:37:59 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that he is intrigued to hear that the
Commission pushed back against the Alaska Supreme Court (ASC) on
legal matters and asked for details about this.
MR. BUDZINSKI replied that the issue of attorney fee rates is
still before the Alaska Supreme Court. He explained that there
was an attempt to increase the hourly rate paid to attorneys
representing injured workers from the typical range of $400 -
$450 per hour to between $600 - $900 per hour. The Commission
awarded $450 per hour for an appeal, consistent with its past
practice. That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which
responded that a higher rate was appropriate and remanded the
case to the Commission for reconsideration.
MR. BUDZINSKI said the Commission declined to reconsider,
maintaining its original decision. The matter is now before the
Supreme Court again. He expressed his view that this
demonstrated legal courage on the part of the Commission. This
matter is important to concerned employers who may be required
to pay higher rates for attorneys representing injured workers.
1:39:26 PM
SENATOR KIEHL expressed his appreciation for the information and
remarked that he may need to learn more about the issue. He
observed that if employers seek a standard different from the
standard in the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, those
employers should speak to the legislature. He stated that he
found the situation troubling.
MR. BUDZINSKI responded that may happen; employers may need to
approach the legislature for relief. It is a statutory system so
the legislature decides these matters.
1:39:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented on an unrelated matter, noting that he
found it interesting that, in other issues before the
legislature, the executive branch appears comfortable paying
outside attorneys between $600 and $900 per hour for
representation in statehood defense claims. He remarked that
while he was once troubled by such high rates, they now seem to
have become relatively normalized.
MR. BUDZINSKI said that the Supreme Court awarded the rate, it
was not done at the Board level. The issue became whether the
Commission should adopt that rate. The Commission decided
against adopting that rate.
1:40:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether this was a published Supreme Court
decision.
MR. BUDZINSKI replied yes but noted that it is on appeal again
and remains ongoing.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether this was the first case published and
remanded to the Commission on the issue.
MR. BUDZINSKI confirmed and stated that the case involves two
injured workers, with the first named Rusch. The employer was
Southeast Alaska Regional Health [Consortium] (SEARHC).
1:41:20 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony on SB 60.
CHAIR CLAMAN held SB 60 in committee.